Better on clay: Muster or Bruguera?
- Thread starter toth
- Start date
SamprasisGOAT
Hall of Fame
Bruguera just.
D
Deleted member 758560
Guest
muster
WestboroChe
Hall of Fame
I say Brugera. He beat Courier in a great FO final when courier was the best player in the world and then won again the next year.
Muster was just a guy who was good at beating players in regular tour events.
Muster was just a guy who was good at beating players in regular tour events.
SamprasisGOAT
Hall of Fame
Bruguera in this era wins about 6 slams.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Bruguera. Muster was better in direct comparison and had a superior H2H but lost against all other kind of players. Bruguera has the way better FO record.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
So you think he would take some off Rafa?
SamprasisGOAT
Hall of Fame
Well who knows mate. Australian open, Wimbledon and us open are all so slow now days he could win some of them. I think he’d lose 7-3 in clay matches against nadal.
Maybe 6 slams is over the top. More like 3 slams. Muster could win 3 also.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Given he made no finals at any of the others I'm assuming any extra Slams he might pick up in this era would have to come at RG in which case we're talking beating Rafa unless he steals them from Fed, Stan and Djoko?
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Best year: Goatster 1995
Best overall: Bruguera
Best overall: Bruguera
D
Deleted member 758560
Guest
RG 97..kuerten-bruguera 6-3 6-4 6-2/ kuerten-muster 6-7 6-1 6-3 3-6 6-4..
P.S. just kidding
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
RG 97..kuerten-bruguera 6-3 6-4 6-2/ kuerten-muster 6-7 6-1 6-3 3-6 6-4..
P.S. just kidding
Bruguera was past his best though, should've lost to s&v Rafter in SF if Pat was more forceful on big points. Kuerten is the better player anyway of course.
D
Deleted member 758560
Guest
titles on clay: bruguera 13, muster 41
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Ferrer has more claycourt titles than Federer :O
D
Deleted member 758560
Guest
ferrer-fed analogy is grasping at the straws i think.. 13-11 and 13-41 feel the difference.. 6-2 h2h muster also...ok, just one additional RG gives the edge to bruguera for you, i got it
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
2 wins, 2 semis. Muster's second best is 2 QFs iirc.
Arent there less serve volley players on other clay events than in RG?
Maybe it can be a factor?
D
Deleted member 758560
Guest
ask @AnOctorokForDinner aboit it, he knows the history better than me, maybe he's in
VintageMac84
New User
I gotta go Muster
tylerbrisco
Banned
I would say Muster. Bruguera never was the terrifying force on clay Muster was in 95-96.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Apart from Serve and Volley players who ate him for lunch even on clay.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Muster would be lucky to win a set against nadal. This is the ultimate bad matchup. Tell me one single thing Muster does better than Rafa.
NonP
Legend
As always I continue to be battled by the kind of statistical contortions that says 1 major beats 2 because, you know, all the other (warm-up) things. I could buy such a rationale if we were talking about GOATs with double digits between them, or even ATGs in the class of Becker, Edberg and Wilander, but not when it comes to the One-to-Two-Slam Club whose greatest achievement wouldn't be mistaken for anything else. The only time I'd be willing to entertain an exception to the rule is when the Slam in question had a clearly depleted field a la '73 Wimbledon or the AO of yore. Apart from that I just don't see how anyone can make a strong case for a 1-Slammer over a 2-timer, all their results at smaller events be damned.
A couple more things about this matchup: no, Bruguera never dominated day in and day out like Muster or any of the Big 3 (certainly not Nadal) for that matter, but that has less to do with the Spaniard's CC prowess than with his temperament which was more akin to that of a Wilander, Kuerten or Wawrinka who found it hard to fire themselves up except for the biggies. Keep in mind that Bruguera's '93 FO run was one of the most dominant in history, a rarefied air reached by none of the aforementioned players (yes including Muster) except Rafa, and I'm confident that Sergei despite his well-known matchup issues with Thomas would've found a way to come out ahead had their peak years coincided.
Time for some housekeeping:
That was indeed one of the great FO finals ever, and the only reason why it isn't spoken of more often has to be its lack of a household name. Courier was in truly imperial form, winning over a whopping 64% of his service/return games that CC season (just to put this in perspective the only player who has matched/topped this number since '91 is none other than Nadal), and I can see why fans say he was a better CCer than Bruguera, but I think that classic 5-setter showed Bruguera to be even more of a natural on dirt: both could trade heavy groundies all day long, yes, but Sergei had a superior sense of how to use the CC to his advantage, as can be seen in that final point where Jim hits fearlessly despite facing the CP on his opponent's serve and starts jerking him around, but Sergei refuses to take the bait by overhitting or rushing the net, and when Courier comes in himself and lands a damn good BH volley into Bruguera's deuce corner the Spaniard returns it with an even better thread-the-needle FH pass DTL which forces a difficult stab volley from his opponent which sails just long:
And of course Bruguera followed it up with another win over Courier in next year's SF. Maybe Jim was indeed better vs. the whole field but I say Sergei's peak was even higher.
You specialize in being comically wrong 24/7/365 while passing yourself as an authority on any topic you think yourself qualified to pontificate on. Why should I or anyone else take your opinion on this matter seriously?
Ignore the clown. I honestly can't recall a single thing the guy has said that had a solid basis on reality.
Still gotta add you sell Muster a bit short. The guy is only one of a handful of players who has cracked that magic 60% in games won on dirt (in '95 and '96, unsurprisingly) and if Rafa has dropped sets to the likes of Grosjean, Puerta, Mathieu, Hewitt, Soderling, Isner, Brands, Klizan, Ferrer, Sock, Schwartzman, Goffin and Thiem (in addition to Fed and Novak, of course) it seems rather hyperbolic to downplay the possibility of the former King of Clay pushing his great successor at least to a 4-setter on their most natural surface.
Plus Muster like Kafelnikov had an ego whose size frankly exceeded that of his talent but which allowed him to outdo himself vs. opponents (as in his fine upset of Sampras on indoor carpet at '95 Essen) that his peers with less self-belief would have no chance against. Most Slam champs don't get to where they are by accident and gawd knows the Austrian had to overcome lots of obstacles on the way.
A couple more things about this matchup: no, Bruguera never dominated day in and day out like Muster or any of the Big 3 (certainly not Nadal) for that matter, but that has less to do with the Spaniard's CC prowess than with his temperament which was more akin to that of a Wilander, Kuerten or Wawrinka who found it hard to fire themselves up except for the biggies. Keep in mind that Bruguera's '93 FO run was one of the most dominant in history, a rarefied air reached by none of the aforementioned players (yes including Muster) except Rafa, and I'm confident that Sergei despite his well-known matchup issues with Thomas would've found a way to come out ahead had their peak years coincided.
Time for some housekeeping:
That was indeed one of the great FO finals ever, and the only reason why it isn't spoken of more often has to be its lack of a household name. Courier was in truly imperial form, winning over a whopping 64% of his service/return games that CC season (just to put this in perspective the only player who has matched/topped this number since '91 is none other than Nadal), and I can see why fans say he was a better CCer than Bruguera, but I think that classic 5-setter showed Bruguera to be even more of a natural on dirt: both could trade heavy groundies all day long, yes, but Sergei had a superior sense of how to use the CC to his advantage, as can be seen in that final point where Jim hits fearlessly despite facing the CP on his opponent's serve and starts jerking him around, but Sergei refuses to take the bait by overhitting or rushing the net, and when Courier comes in himself and lands a damn good BH volley into Bruguera's deuce corner the Spaniard returns it with an even better thread-the-needle FH pass DTL which forces a difficult stab volley from his opponent which sails just long:
And of course Bruguera followed it up with another win over Courier in next year's SF. Maybe Jim was indeed better vs. the whole field but I say Sergei's peak was even higher.
You specialize in being comically wrong 24/7/365 while passing yourself as an authority on any topic you think yourself qualified to pontificate on. Why should I or anyone else take your opinion on this matter seriously?
Ignore the clown. I honestly can't recall a single thing the guy has said that had a solid basis on reality.
Still gotta add you sell Muster a bit short. The guy is only one of a handful of players who has cracked that magic 60% in games won on dirt (in '95 and '96, unsurprisingly) and if Rafa has dropped sets to the likes of Grosjean, Puerta, Mathieu, Hewitt, Soderling, Isner, Brands, Klizan, Ferrer, Sock, Schwartzman, Goffin and Thiem (in addition to Fed and Novak, of course) it seems rather hyperbolic to downplay the possibility of the former King of Clay pushing his great successor at least to a 4-setter on their most natural surface.
Plus Muster like Kafelnikov had an ego whose size frankly exceeded that of his talent but which allowed him to outdo himself vs. opponents (as in his fine upset of Sampras on indoor carpet at '95 Essen) that his peers with less self-belief would have no chance against. Most Slam champs don't get to where they are by accident and gawd knows the Austrian had to overcome lots of obstacles on the way.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
Muster has much much more power so he is better. also his incredible energy level is more exciting and is better for tennis.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
It is not only 2>1, Musters Record at the French was abysmal, his best result apart from his sole win were one additional semi and one additional quarter. If it weren’t for his clay success elsewhere one could actually talk about a fluke winner.
Last edited:
flanker2000fr
Hall of Fame
Too close to call. I watched them both extensively back in the day, and this is one where, honestly, I cannot form an opinion.
NonP
Legend
@tkramer15, you made it hard to respond to each point of yours so I'll just leave you with the following:
- I treat smaller tournaments including Masters mostly as warm-ups for the majors. If you're that adamant about insisting on the importance of non-Slam events then yes, it's "end of argument" for both of us as we've got very different priorities.
- Nobody who speaks at least rudimentary English as you clearly do could possibly read my last post and reduce it to "[a] two slam winner almost always trumps a one slam winner."
- We should always be careful about relying on the average ranking of a player's opponents to gauge his competition, but that's especially true with respect to the '90s which were chock-full of surface specialists which in turn made the seedings (only 16 at the time as opposed to today's 32) highly unreliable.
- You can't use Muster's matchup issues vs. S&Vers as a caveat while pointing to his superior H2H vs. Bruguera as this huge point in his favor. And the fact that Courier himself won his career matchup vs. Bruguera (5-2 overall, 3-2 on clay) but ended up losing both of their RG encounters should give you further pause about using H2Hs as reliable points of comparison.
- We judge how good a player was not only based on how he fared against a particular opponent but rather vs. the whole field, and the fact that Muster never came close to Bruguera's dominance at '93 RG - the 14th-highest overall and 9th-highest at RG of the Open Era in % of games won, and matched/bettered only by Agassi at the '03 AO and Nadal at a handful of Slams since then - renders your hairsplitting about whatever rankings moot.
What did I misunderstand? I thought your post indicated that you were in support of Bruguera because, unless a unique exception exists, you could not elevate a one slam winner over a two slam winner. You stated, "Apart from (a unique exception) I just don't see how anyone can make a strong case for a 1-Slammer over a 2-timer, all their results at smaller events be damned."
In the case of Bruguera and Muster, I feel that an exception exists. In no way was I attempting to discredit your input. You have obviously been a big pro tennis fan for a long time. So have I. As you deduced, I am/was a Muster fan. Is there some bias? Probably so. You made some very nice statements about Muster, but you seem to prefer Bruguera. That's ok. However, you made a few statements that reflected some allegiance to Bruguera that are based on conjecture and not statistical fact: "I'm confident that Sergi, despite his well-known matchup issues with Thomas, would've found a way to come out on top had their peak years coincided." That's no different than me projecting that Muster may have been able to put together another few deep runs at Roland Garros had he had a little better luck with the draws.
Addressing your bulleted list:
- The ATP Tour in the 1990s generally consisted of 70-80+ tournaments. Clay court events existed virtually throughout the calendar back then. There is no doubt that Grand Slams were, as they still are, at the very top of the pecking order, but as you have pointed out, players were much more specialized back then. Clay court specialists tended to find ways to play on clay throughout much of the year. There were exceptions of course, but "dirt ballers" as they were called, tended to not fare very well on faster surfaces. Nor did they necessarily care very much about excelling off of clay. You know all of this already. My point is that you cannot just throw out all of the other clay court events that were played back then.
- Bruguera's title in Prague in the summer of 1994, for instance, involved victories over a young future clay court great Albert Costa in the semis and Medvedev, who had won both Monte Carlo and Hamburg that year, in the final. Despite Prague being a relatively low stature tournament, it featured some very strong clay court players. That title was therefore pretty meaningful for Bruguera.
- Muster racked up a bunch of similar types of tournament victories. One relatively obscure Muster title at first glance, Palermo in the fall of 1993, featured Bruguera and Muster as the top two seeds alongside a host of other tough European clay courters. Muster beat the reigning French Open champion Bruguera 7-6 (2), 7-5 in the final.
- These tournaments cannot be dismissed into "warmup" or "small" status and treated as if they don't count. I provided two very good examples, but there are many more.
- Muster won 33 of these "small" clay court tournaments (anything other than a Slam or Masters). Bruguera won nine.
- I already addressed this bullet in my opening.
- I fully agree with you about the flaw of using the average ranking or seeding of opponents as a reliable measuring stick; however, I thought it was interesting that Muster's path in 1995 was arguably more difficult overall than Bruguera's in 1993. I was really referring to the quality/experience of his opponents and clay court prowess rather than their actual ranking at that time, but I computed the average for reference sake. I have long maintained that the seeding of only 16 players throughout the '90s and into the early 2000s made things much different. A top seed back then could potentially meet #17 (who just missed being seeded) in the opening round. We will obviously never know, but I wonder how some Grand Slam outcomes in the '90s might've been different had the draws featured 32 seeds instead of 16.
- You are correct. Head-to-head analysis cannot be used to prove one player was better than the other or had a better career than the other. There are too many other factors. The Muster-Bruguera head-to-head is a fairly moot point in all of this. The vast majority of the other statistics strongly favor Muster anyway. To illustrate the head-to-head analysis difficulty, Bruguera had a better record versus Sampras and Edberg (although with far fewer meetings) than Muster did, while the Muster-Courier rivalry was topsy turvy. Courier dominated their matchups between 1992 and 1995 and won their opening matchup in 1997 before Muster concluded their head-to-head with three wins in a row in significant hard court events in 1997. Courier did not drop a set in his five wins over Bruguera, but lost both of their French Open encounters like you said. Muster struggled mightily against attacking players, particularly on faster surfaces, but sometimes on clay as well. I didn't mean for this to come off as an excuse. It was definitely a weakness. I simply meant to illustrate that Muster did not catch many breaks in terms of his draws at the French over the years.
- I already addressed this to a degree, but I don't understand how Bruguera's 1993 French title is light years more impressive than Muster's 1995 French title. I trust that your % statistics are correct. I did the math and found that Bruguera dropped only 62 total games during his 1993 title run. Muster dropped 77 games during his 1995 title run. While that certainly favors Bruguera, as does the fact that he beat Sampras and Courier, ranked #1 and #2, Muster's defeat of Pioline, Carlos Costa, Medvedev, Albert Costa, Kafelnikov and Chang was mighty impressive in its own right. Of that group, only Carlos Costa never appeared in a Grand Slam final or won a Grand Slam. Carlos was a pretty good clay court player though. Muster dropped just seven games against Pioline, 10 against C. Costa, six against Medvedev, eight against Kafelnikov and 11 versus Chang. Bruguera's triple bagel defeat of Frenchman Thierry Champion in the second round in 1993 skews the numbers a bit. Champion had won only one ATP match in 1993 entering Roland Garros.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
NonP
Legend
Heh, no "allegiance" here. You're talking to a Becker/Sampras diehard who's a fan of the big game in general and was mostly bored with the latest USO final. I'm just calling it as I see it.
But since you brought it up, I said that about the hypothetical FO final between Bruguera and Muster because the record books clearly suggest Sergei was a different beast when it came to the sport's biggest event on his favorite surface. Some players find it hard temperamentally to give their all throughout the year (Sampras probably being the most extreme example out of all former all-time greats), and we know for a fact that Bruguera achieved more at RG than Muster despite his injuries (of course Thomas had to overcome a nearly career-ending one himself). Plus the good ol' eye test tells me Sergei was simply more dangerous.
Speaking of which I'll also add that Bruguera didn't have a fatal Achilles' heel like Muster did vs. S&Vers/net rushers. People like to compare Sergei (unfavorably) to Rafa these days but most of them aren't even aware that the former topspin king was a more aggressive returner by far than your typical dirtballer, one who liked to hug the service line on his 2nd-serve returns. That made him a tough matchup even for elite attackers like Sampras, and while Muster had several notable wins of his own vs. the same group (again his victory over Pete on indoor carpet at '95 Essen comes to mind) he was mostly a grinder (yes a damn good one at that) who was never quite able or willing to make such a drastic adjustment.
All of which is why my pick of Sergei in the imaginary RG final between the two isn't pure conjecture on my part. Again you and I disagree on the importance of smaller events and I do get why people would prefer a more calendar-based approach, but I tend to see the tennis calendar as a series of mini-seasons culminating in one of the four majors (and the YEC, though it has lost its luster over the years) and IMO it's not at all dismissive to refer to the non-Slam events as warm-ups when they're indeed lead-ups to the biggies in question. Contrary to a (very) vocal contrarian constituency the #1 ranking takes on mythical significance at the year-end, a standard of excellence that's no less "arbitrary" than the status of GS tournaments or the validity of the 52-week calendar itself. To put it another way, I'd be more receptive to your defense of Muster were he sitting at home with the same number of RG trophies as Bruguera, but in my book the latter's superior FO is too much of an advantage for Thomas' own in other statistical areas to serve the role of a tiebreaker. You obviously abide by a different book, and that's cool.
So, the question here on this thread is strictly related to Bruguera and Muster's clay court prowess/results. Does the narrative shift at all if we consider their entire careers? Clay was undeniably each player's best surface by far. I have established why I feel that Muster's entire clay court body of work is still superior to Bruguera's despite the Spaniard's bigger finishes at Roland Garros. Are those French Opens still enough to overcome several other factors that also clearly favor Muster when we look at each player's results off of clay? The Austrian reached the Australian Open semis twice and the US Open quarterfinals three times, while Bruguera never advanced past the fourth round of any of the majors outside of the French. Muster won eight Masters/Super 9 tournaments: six on clay, one on outdoor hard court and one on indoor carpet. Bruguera won two, both on clay.
Basically, Muster's entire body of work was considerably more noteworthy unless you discount everything other than Bruguera reached three Slam finals (winning two) versus Muster's lone finals appearance and victory. I understand how coveted Grand Slam trophies are, but reducing a player's entire career down to whether or not he reached Slam finals seems extremely simplistic and faulty. That may work when trying to split hairs between Federer, Nadal or Djokovic who have legitimately tempered their entire schedules to peak for Grand Slams for quite a few years, but it doesn't work very well when evaluating many of the one or two Slam winners of past eras. I completely disagree with the poster who suggested that the Masters/Super 9 events, especially the ones on clay, were not coveted or well attended in the '90s. Of course some of the Americans did not come over for Monte Carlo or Hamburg every year, but that did not severely weaken anything. Monte Carlo and Rome have always been extremely prestigious for the European players in particular. Even today, Nadal makes a point to play in Monte Carlo every single year. Clay court specialists did not always play both Montreal/Toronto and Cincinnati or both of the indoor Super 9s in the fall. That's just the way it was. Heck, even Wimbledon was frequently skipped by the clay courters who desired a mid-season break. Consequently, the entire calendar and the entire body of work must be taken into consideration, especially when comparing players in the 1990s.
Career Grand Slam Record
Bruguera: 55-31 (63.95%) (2 W, 1 F, 1 SF)
Muster: 77-38 (66.96%) (1 W, 3 SF, 5 QF)
Career Masters/Super 9 Record
Bruguera: 94-61 (60.65%) (2 W, 2 F, 4 SF, 9 QF)
Muster: 101-45 (69.18%) (8 W, 2 F, 4 SF, 5 QF)
Basically, Muster's entire body of work was considerably more noteworthy unless you discount everything other than Bruguera reached three Slam finals (winning two) versus Muster's lone finals appearance and victory. I understand how coveted Grand Slam trophies are, but reducing a player's entire career down to whether or not he reached Slam finals seems extremely simplistic and faulty. That may work when trying to split hairs between Federer, Nadal or Djokovic who have legitimately tempered their entire schedules to peak for Grand Slams for quite a few years, but it doesn't work very well when evaluating many of the one or two Slam winners of past eras. I completely disagree with the poster who suggested that the Masters/Super 9 events, especially the ones on clay, were not coveted or well attended in the '90s. Of course some of the Americans did not come over for Monte Carlo or Hamburg every year, but that did not severely weaken anything. Monte Carlo and Rome have always been extremely prestigious for the European players in particular. Even today, Nadal makes a point to play in Monte Carlo every single year. Clay court specialists did not always play both Montreal/Toronto and Cincinnati or both of the indoor Super 9s in the fall. That's just the way it was. Heck, even Wimbledon was frequently skipped by the clay courters who desired a mid-season break. Consequently, the entire calendar and the entire body of work must be taken into consideration, especially when comparing players in the 1990s.
Career Grand Slam Record
Bruguera: 55-31 (63.95%) (2 W, 1 F, 1 SF)
Muster: 77-38 (66.96%) (1 W, 3 SF, 5 QF)
Career Masters/Super 9 Record
Bruguera: 94-61 (60.65%) (2 W, 2 F, 4 SF, 9 QF)
Muster: 101-45 (69.18%) (8 W, 2 F, 4 SF, 5 QF)
This is a case where I think you need to differentiate greater and better.
Greater is probably Bruguera due to his back to back RG titles and a 3rd final apperance there. He ultimately came through bigger where it mattered most.
Better is probably Muster. Bruguera never had a fear factor or near invincability on clay as Muster had in 95-96. Not even close.
Greater is probably Bruguera due to his back to back RG titles and a 3rd final apperance there. He ultimately came through bigger where it mattered most.
Better is probably Muster. Bruguera never had a fear factor or near invincability on clay as Muster had in 95-96. Not even close.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
The margin isn't big enough for Muster in my opinion to say he was better. Keep in mind Thomas only made one other SF appearance at the French where he lost to Gomez in straights. Whereas Bruegera made a total 4 Semifinals and his lone loss at that stage was to Chang where the first 2 sets could have easily gone his way (3rd set tiebreak was a formality at that point).
Muster only has a 6>2 edge in clay Masters.
Grand Slam titles aren't end all be all but performance in Slams overall is going to be substantially ahead of secondary tournaments due to the format. Masters tournaments are usually 5 Bo3 matches, in those days 4 then a Bo5 final. Comparing that to 7 Bo5 matches is no contest. It's clear kind of like Zverev today, Muster had some issue with fatigue playing Bo5 matches over the course of two weeks, which is why save for 1 year he wasn't a threat at the biggest clay tournament. Accident aside of course.
So it's Bruegera for me. It's not like comparing Wawrinka with 1 clay masters and 2 French finals.
Muster only has a 6>2 edge in clay Masters.
Grand Slam titles aren't end all be all but performance in Slams overall is going to be substantially ahead of secondary tournaments due to the format. Masters tournaments are usually 5 Bo3 matches, in those days 4 then a Bo5 final. Comparing that to 7 Bo5 matches is no contest. It's clear kind of like Zverev today, Muster had some issue with fatigue playing Bo5 matches over the course of two weeks, which is why save for 1 year he wasn't a threat at the biggest clay tournament. Accident aside of course.
So it's Bruegera for me. It's not like comparing Wawrinka with 1 clay masters and 2 French finals.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Not 100% sure that Muster had this fear factor of near invincibility. Sure, his stats in 95/96 were impressive but it is not that he cruised through his opponents like Nadal. He was at the brink of defeat several times and even had to defend match points on more than one occasion. His vulnerability against S&V players even on clay was always well known. It is no coincidence that he could only manage one good FO run.
Valid points but I still think he was more intimidating and dominant on clay in 95-96 than Bruguera ever was. Good serve and volley players who were good on clay were dead by that point anyway as people like Edberg and Becker were well past their prime even on their best surfaces, so stunk on clay by then.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
@BGod and @tkramer15
Regarding the importance of smaller events, I think there are too side to the question.
It seems these events were very important for clay courts specialists, including relative to slams, as many of them missed a lot of AO and Wimbledon or had very early exits when they entered these tournaments. For these players who had so little hope of success outside clay, it makes sense that smaller clay tournaments become quite important, the place where they had a chance to success, fame and money.
But, on the other side, it's pretty clear that this smaller clay court tournaments were important for them only. Players whose game was better suited to other surfaces clearly didn't try hard in these events, including some Masters 1000, and only cared about Roland-Garros.
I checked the number of clay titles out of the total number of titles of all the players who reached the final at RG in the 90's, excluding Gomez who was really an 80's player, and including Chang who was really a 90's player. it's very easy to divide between players who cared about small clay tournaments and those who didn't, who by the way had generally much better overall careers than the clay court specialists:
Chang: 4 clay titles out of 34 titles
Agassi: 7/60
Courier: 5/23
Kafelnikov: 3/26
Stich: 3/18
Korda: 0/10
Kuerten: 14/20
Bruguera: 13/14
Muster: 40/44
Berasategui: 14/14
Corretja: 10/17
Moya: 16/20
Medvedev: 8/11
Agassi is a good exemple: He won Roland-Garros once, made two finals, two semi-finals, 4 QF. For sure Agassi had the ability to win smaller clay events, he just didn't care at all, he even skipped like 90% of the clay masters 1000. Same with Courier, who hardly played Monte-Carlo and Hamburg.
So this indicate to me that these clay events lacked the top all court players and, if they may have been important for clay courters, the level of competition there was strongly lowered by the disinterest of players who could have dominated these events had they cared about them.
I think it would be even worse if I looked at Roland-Garros semi-finalists, where there are plenty of players whose game was not suited at all to clay and have overall dismall clay performances such as Becker, Krajicek, Rafter, Rosset, Sampras, etc.
Regarding the importance of smaller events, I think there are too side to the question.
It seems these events were very important for clay courts specialists, including relative to slams, as many of them missed a lot of AO and Wimbledon or had very early exits when they entered these tournaments. For these players who had so little hope of success outside clay, it makes sense that smaller clay tournaments become quite important, the place where they had a chance to success, fame and money.
But, on the other side, it's pretty clear that this smaller clay court tournaments were important for them only. Players whose game was better suited to other surfaces clearly didn't try hard in these events, including some Masters 1000, and only cared about Roland-Garros.
I checked the number of clay titles out of the total number of titles of all the players who reached the final at RG in the 90's, excluding Gomez who was really an 80's player, and including Chang who was really a 90's player. it's very easy to divide between players who cared about small clay tournaments and those who didn't, who by the way had generally much better overall careers than the clay court specialists:
Chang: 4 clay titles out of 34 titles
Agassi: 7/60
Courier: 5/23
Kafelnikov: 3/26
Stich: 3/18
Korda: 0/10
Kuerten: 14/20
Bruguera: 13/14
Muster: 40/44
Berasategui: 14/14
Corretja: 10/17
Moya: 16/20
Medvedev: 8/11
Agassi is a good exemple: He won Roland-Garros once, made two finals, two semi-finals, 4 QF. For sure Agassi had the ability to win smaller clay events, he just didn't care at all, he even skipped like 90% of the clay masters 1000. Same with Courier, who hardly played Monte-Carlo and Hamburg.
So this indicate to me that these clay events lacked the top all court players and, if they may have been important for clay courters, the level of competition there was strongly lowered by the disinterest of players who could have dominated these events had they cared about them.
I think it would be even worse if I looked at Roland-Garros semi-finalists, where there are plenty of players whose game was not suited at all to clay and have overall dismall clay performances such as Becker, Krajicek, Rafter, Rosset, Sampras, etc.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
What do you think of players who won less slams but still had great performances at slams (runner-up and SF) such as Roddick vs Kafelnikov or Murray vs Courier for exemple?
NonP
Legend
Top players playing all MS events is a relatively recent phenomenon. Part of that has to do with the standardization of the tour, yes, but the mindset was also different back then because the so-called peaking system used to be rammed down the throats of those poor boys and girls toiling at tennis factories before they'd played a single competitive match on the pro circuit. Peaking for the biggies wasn't just a Sampras thing, you see.
And I've explained why Muster was the Vilas of his time. Don't feel like rehashing it at the moment.
Short answer:
Kafelnikov or any 2-Slammer > Roddick or any 1-Slammer
Courier = Murray
Long(ish) answer:
Still stand by my earlier comment that 2 beats 1 except when one of the former had a clearly depleted field. The only qualification I'll add is that the calculus changes a bit when the Slam in question was a clear one-off a la ToJo's or Gaudio's, but 2-Slammers are almost by definition immune to this charge. I suppose one could say Kaf's '99 AO was a fluke cuz his nemesis Sampras sat it out, but is that really that much different from Fed's '09 FO where an injured Rafa lost to Soderling, considering an exhausted Pete likely ain't winning the whole thing even if he did compete?
Jim vs. the other Andy is a tad trickier. When you get to this level an extra Slam takes on less significance, and while Jim does have the Slam advantage and IMO a higher peak Ahn-dee can also point to his huge edge in longevity. And both were pretty solid on all surfaces. So I rank 'em more or less equal.
A more difficult call would be, say, Rafter vs. Kuerten, Safin vs. Wawrinka, and the like. 2 vs. 3 is where I'm not so sure an extra Slam would be a decisive advantage. For 1 vs. 2, though? A no-brainer for moi.
legrandLeconte
Rookie
Muster
I'm sorry, but the argument that Agassi, Courier, Sampras, Chang, etc. could have "dominated" the European clay court swing had they played more tournaments is extremely faulty. There is no denying that Agassi, Courier, Sampras, Chang, Becker and some other top '90s players did not prioritize the European clay court season. The ATP calendar was much different back then. Players could find ways to play on their favored surface throughout much of the year. It was standard for the Americans back then to play in Australia and then return to the U.S. for a series of indoor events in February prior to Indian Wells and Key Biscayne in March. There was actually a mini-U.S. clay swing with tournaments in Atlanta and Florida in April, as well as an event in Hong Kong on quick hard courts that Sampras, Chang and Courier frequented (and each won). The present day Tokyo event was also played in April in the '90s. Sampras and Courier won it every year from 1992-1996.
Consequently, those players often did not trek to Europe for the April portion of the red clay season. Why not? The answer is two-fold. They partially wanted to avoid traveling to Europe so early because they knew they would be there for over a month for the French Open and Wimbledon (and the weeks in between). The second part of the answer is that it made more sense for them to play a weaker clay court event or two at home (if they played them at all), earn some ranking points and/or play Hong Kong and Tokyo where they had a much better chance of winning on a preferred faster surface. Yes, Agassi and Courier, in particular, were obviously very capable of winning on clay. Had they tempered their schedules differently, might they have made things more interesting at Monte Carlo, Hamburg, etc. had they played more often? Possibly. It's very hard to say.
Clearly, Agassi and Courier were greater players than Bruguera and Muster, for instance, but would they have "dominated" the European clay court events had they entered more of them? I don't believe so. They instead chose to largely stay away from the physical grind of the European clay until just before Roland Garros. It worked for them, but it was not the norm for many others.
I am not claiming this to be anything close to a one-to-one comparison, but do you believe that Muster would've done better in some of the bigger hard court events had he changed his priorities? Perhaps, but that was simply not the mindset back then. In 1997, Muster did set out to disprove the notion that he couldn't win on hard courts. He reached the semis in Australia, won Dubai, semis in Indian Wells, won Key Biscayne and later reached the final in Cincinnati. Probably not coincidentally, Muster had a terrible clay court season that year.
What about other Grand Slam champions like Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic or Krajicek? Those guys played Monte Carlo, Hamburg and Rome virtually every single year. They were capable of beating anyone, even on clay. Those Masters/Super 9 draws were very strong back then, regardless of Agassi, Courier, Sampras or Chang's presence or lack there of.
Last edited:
