Yes but he did lost to Goran on clay, I said before 94 RG Sergi and 94 Sampras in yec is tougher.Well prime Sergi essentially is peak Sergi lol. In 93-95 his RG results were: W, W, SF (lost to Chang). He was never the same after that ankle injury in 96.
Wow, this is riveting information for sure and it does lessen the greatness of Chang's win. I don't think it's fair to Sergi to count this as a prime level win against him.Doesn't count, that day Sergi was injured, unmotivated, his parents divorced, and his dog ran over by Muster's BMW.
If fed had played in Pete era he would have a medium high vantage in h2h. Pete played in the best era for him with modern racket and old court, but the difference between fed return and Pete serve is less than Pete return and fed serve. Fed had alongside edberg the best backhand on fast court in the last fifty years. Agassi claimed fed as better faced and pietrangeli said there are three goats(fed, laver and borg). Fed had a better return against big serve better than fedNadal vs. prime Sampras indoors... holy crap that'd be a mismatch. Nadal would only win if he keeps modern racket tech and Sampras stays with the old stuff. Assuming equal preparation and technology, prime Pete would blow him off the court. His game just translates so well to those types of surfaces while Nadal is disadvantaged on courts with low bounce like carpet.
Djokovic would find it tricky to beat Sampras indoors in those specific conditions because his game works better on the slower courts of the post-2008 ATP Finals. He's still great on the surface and I think he'd pull out the occasional win if he's truly zoning, but Sampras is clearly the better player in those conditions. Still, Djokovic's return would come in really handy here.
Federer's game would adapt so much more easily to fast carpet courts than Djokovic and especially Nadal, so I feel he'd give Sampras a harder time than the other two. Remember, he did play in a time when the Masters Cup was still pretty fast (2003-2008) and he had some absolutely stunning displays at that tournament (though 2003 and 2004 were outdoors). In a series of ten matches, I could see him winning four or even... possibly... five, but I'd have to give PETE the definite upper hand in this rivalry.
Nadal would wipe the floor with Bruguera unless its one of his weaker versions on clay like 2011, 2014, or 2018-now. I don't think much needs to be said.
Djokovic would have the upper hand in this rivalry I think (I believe 90's clay would be much easier for a 00's and 10's player to get accustomed to than blindingly-fast carpet) although Bruguera would grab plenty of wins.
I would probably favor Bruguera against Federer the majority of the time but Fed would certainly still grab some wins of his own.
I think Federer is the best answer to the OP's question but Djokovic could possibly do it too.
The king of clayPrime Bruguera was not all that impressive, even on clay. Muster owned him.
Pat Rafter clowned Muster at the ‘94 French Open lolPrime Bruguera was not all that impressive, even on clay. Muster owned him.
Somehow Muster always underperformed on RGPat Rafter clowned Muster at the ‘94 French Open lol
Also “Musterrific” only made it past the 4th round at Roland Garros 3 times. I know there were some upsets like Guga but seriously wtf. How is the “King of Clay” only making the QFs 3 times???
bruguera > muster at RG.Prime Bruguera was not all that impressive, even on clay. Muster owned him.
It's a difficult choice. All 3 of them can demolish Bruguera. That's easy. He barely scraped past Courier to win FO.Place them in say 1994 or 1996 or something, could any Big 3 member beat Sergi Bruguera at the mega slow 90s French Open and also Pete Sampras on lightning fast carpet at the YEC?
Caveat: they would have to do it in the same season.
Who would do it?
Yeah, Nadal who has won exactly 2 indoor titles in his entire career would take out Pete on carpet.Only Nadal.
Sergi was out for a month with a knee injury prior to '95 RG. It'd be a bloodbath between 1993-94 Bruguera and '95 Chang (who almost made the 60% Club himself).
Can some of you explain what you're seeing from Michael Chang in these two matches that Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic are incapable of doing?
Indoor king Ivan Lendl disagrees about the backhand thing.If fed had played in Pete era he would have a medium high vantage in h2h. Pete played in the best era for him with modern racket and old court, but the difference between fed return and Pete serve is less than Pete return and fed serve. Fed had alongside edberg the best backhand on fast court in the last fifty years. Agassi claimed fed as better faced and pietrangeli said there are three goats(fed, laver and borg). Fed had a better return against big serve better than fed
Still though, Bruguera made the 1995 Rome final losing to Muster. He was also the 2x defending champ at Roland Garros.Sergi was out for a month with a knee injury prior to '95 RG. It'd be a bloodbath between 1993-94 Bruguera and '95 Chang (who almost made the 60% Club himself).
Mike did get Pete good by almost outserving him (7 aces each) and mercilessly attacking short balls in the '95 YEC SF, but that's cuz Pistol struggled with his 1st-serve % all year long (usually he'd average 60%, but only around 55% that year). Put any other version of prime Pistol save '98 and Mike would do well to steal a set (he actually never did indoors outside that match between 1993-96).
Thanks I wanted say grass(and at least hard outdoor)Indoor king Ivan Lendl disagrees about the backhand thing.
Muster beat Sampras on carpet in 1995.You jokers badly need to get this infallible analysis of mine bookmarked:
Courier Bruguera French Open 1993 finals match stats
Didn't do the stats on the first serve % , points won on 1st serve,2nd serve ... but here are the rest of the stats One slight mistake there, bruguera had 25 FH FEs, not 23 , and courier won 148 points and not 146 ... Set by set stats :tt.tennis-warehouse.com
Basically Rafa is the only one who can take down GOATing Bruguera at RG, but of course he ain't beating Pistol on carpet unless Pete has a crap day.
So '90s champs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Big 3. Pistol = BOAT.
Sergi was out for a month with a knee injury prior to '95 RG. It'd be a bloodbath between 1993-94 Bruguera and '95 Chang (who almost made the 60% Club himself).
Mike did get Pete good by almost outserving him (7 aces each) and mercilessly attacking short balls in the '95 YEC SF, but that's cuz Pistol struggled with his 1st-serve % all year long (usually he'd average 60%, but only around 55% that year). Put any other version of prime Pistol save '98 and Mike would do well to steal a set (he actually never did indoors outside that match between 1993-96).
you made that up, right ?Doesn't count, that day Sergi was injured, unmotivated, his parents divorced, and his dog ran over by Muster's BMW.
Bruguera peaked for RGPrime Bruguera was not all that impressive, even on clay. Muster owned him.
He was no Vilas though.Bruguera peaked for RG
Thomas played f**king everything full throttle
Boris is the Indoor Kaiser, precisely cuz his BH > Ivan's and Fed's on those quick indoor courts. (Hard to argue against Edberg's, but then there's the FH side.)Indoor king Ivan Lendl disagrees about the backhand thing.
Sure if you wanna take an extensive definition of "prime," but then whey bother with these hypotheticals if we don't assume they'd be actually playing at prime levels?Still though, Bruguera made the 1995 Rome final losing to Muster. He was also the 2x defending champ at Roland Garros.
Pete had won both Wimby/USO and just won the 1995 Paris Masters, beating Becker in straights, as well as beating Becker in the RR at the '95 YEC.
If that's not prime level form then what is? I'm not saying 'peak' here, but certainly still a very high level coming into the match from both.
Somehow Rafa and Novak will be helpless against these two, and yet, Chang did this exact feat, beating both, did he not? So it clearly is possible, though Bruguera and Pete could play better.
Which reinforces my point. Pete's serve was rather wobbly in '95, except thankfully in the big matches (Wimby SF & F, USO F).Muster beat Sampras on carpet in 1995.
Finally someone gets it. Yeah the Muster-Bruguera H2H is meaningless unless you understand that. Sergi won "only" 62.2% and 63.3% of his games on dirt in '93 and '94 - still damn good, the latter in fact better than Novak or Fed ever managed, but nothing compared to his FO runs where he won a whopping 68.8% and 64.3% each.Bruguera peaked for RG
Tomas played f**king everything full throttle
It does feel good to be called a joker.Sure if you wanna take an extensive definition of "prime," but then whey bother with these hypotheticals if we don't assume they'd be actually playing at prime levels?
Also you're underrating '95 Chang. Like I said he actually won 59.95% of his games on clay and gave peak Muster a real scare early in the FO final, and also posted 89% and 29% in S/RGW, which is pretty damn good on indoor carpet vs. the likes of Becker and Sampras, Courier and Scud. Not that hard to see why Sergi and Pistol would lose to that Mike on an off day.
Yeah Mike tends to get dismissed by teenyboppers as this midget that got lucky vs. a choking Lendl once, but like Hewitt the guy was in fact a tricky opponent for attackers. I'm guessing you already know he's actually the career leader (since '91) in RGW% on hard at 32.8%, yes even more the likes of Dre, Muzz and Novak, and he also boasted some of the best passing shots in the business as well as the best offensive lob I've seen among men (the best defensive one goes to Wilander). Of course that he was also lightning fast goes without saying.It does feel good to be called a joker.
The last point you made is actually something interesting to me from a playstyle perspective. I actually was not trolling with the 'what are you seeing from Michael Chang' question either.
There are merits to what Chang did in both matches,. Chang stands closer to the baseline to return the Pistol serve than you usually see Novak do, and obviously lol at Rafa (though I do feel his reflexes and ability to play closer to the forecourt are certainly there, though they lay dormant often). Plus he was absolutely ruthless at moving into net as you said, he punished like 8/9-10 short balls from what I saw and didn't allow Sampras many easy volleys. His net instincts and ability to ghost in behind a groundstroke are innate and something that I'm not sure Novak could ever replicate, really. Rafa might have a better chance of playing that way, but of course he would get burned trying to play the court position Chang did in these matches.
Yeah this Q could use some clarification. Just about ANY top player can upset even a GOAT on a given day, but that kinda makes the literal interpretation of this Q pointless, doesn't it? And there's literally zero chance any of the Big 3 takes down Bruguera in the '93 FO final AND Pistol in those ATG performances.If we are talking absolute peak level (Bruguera FO final 1993, Pete YEC finsls 94 or 96/GSC final 97) then nobody can. If we are talking just prime years, then in one or two matches basically anything can happen. Nadal would even have a chance vs Pete on carpet if he could catch him on an off day like Muster and Chang in 95.
lol. really made my day.Yeah, Nadal who has won exactly 2 indoor titles in his entire career would take out Pete on carpet.
![]()
Federer only one. Nadal would beat Bruguera not Sampras. Djokovic v Bruguera would be close but id lean towards Bruguera and Djokovic would lose to Sampras.Place them in say 1994 or 1996 or something, could any Big 3 member beat Sergi Bruguera at the mega slow 90s French Open and also Pete Sampras on lightning fast carpet at the YEC?
Caveat: they would have to do it in the same season.
Who would do it?
Muster managed to beat Pete indoors once. So never say never even if unlilely in extremelol. really made my day.
Pete served well in AO 95 QF vs Courier, AO 95 final vs Agassi and USO 95 semi vs Courier as well.Which reinforces my point. Pete's serve was rather wobbly in '95, except thankfully in the big matches (Wimby SF & F, USO F).
I think the best fed vs bruguera/courier at their bests would be a dogfight.Besides you're fooling yourself if you watch the '93 FO final and still think Sergi and Jim yield an inch to Djokorer.
It speaks to PETE’s lack of year round consistency that reminding Agassi that the true paternal figure in his life was Petros Sampras caused a distraction, given that he wrote this letter annually from 1990-2002.Wow, this is riveting information for sure and it does lessen the greatness of Chang's win. I don't think it's fair to Sergi to count this as a prime level win against him.
And I actually just did some research regarding the Chang/Sampras YEC semi that year and it looks like Pete was hungover from the night before, had a minor ankle sprain and was busy writing Agassi a letter about how he was his DADDY that year. Don't think this qualifies as a prime level win either.
The all the big talking about Bruguera is over the top, out side of that two RG he was not invincible on clay, as I said before he lost to Goran on clay in 95, Fed can certainly can defeat anybody on clay.Djokovic from 2011 probably the only one. And that's if he manages his body better than he actually did in 11, and doesn't burn himself out for indoor season.
Wouldn't favor 2010 Rafa over Pete on carpet, although he'd still have a solid chance.
Federer over Bruguera on clay is doubtful.
But i think Agassi would win about 2 of 10 matches against Sampras on carpet.If Agassi could defeat Sampras on carpet, and almost did it twice in a row in 1994, then so would Djokovic. The advantage Djokovic has over Agassi in athleticism is significant. People truly don't understand that.
I would say 3/10. Yea Sampras won all their GS matches on faster courts. Harder to pull off a win when you have to win 3 sets over him versus 2.But i think Agassi would win about 2 of 10 matches against Sampras on carpet.
(Sampras has won all fast surfices GS match against Agassi for example)