Courier Bruguera French Open 1993 finals match stats
- Thread starter abmk
- Start date
This match is a classic example of why one reporter once wrote of Bruguera, he only seems to be bothered to lay it all on the line at the French. When Bruguera was fully focused and not keeling over looking like he was dying and moping and looking lethargic as he was prone to do periodically, he was imo, clearly a step ahead of Courier in foot speed, could fully match his power and occasionally surpass it (Courier was consistently more powerful, whereas Bruguera had a greater top speed due to his racket head speed...but because of his extreme motion and grip, didn't bring it out all that often, he had to pick his spots), and was more versatile groundstroker. Courier was a more straight ahead guy, he was tennis' version of a bulldog at his best. He had stamina for days, he did not wilt, he did not lose concentration in his prime. He said later that he felt like he let up in his focus that fifth set, and he feels he should have had it. Imo, that maybe by his standards, but compared to the absolute gifts of concentration and focus lapses that Bruguera was apt to give you, there's really no comparison.
This was a classic match of two kinds of top players. You have the Muster, Chang, Courier, Rafter, Lendl types who can seemingly focus for days, then you have the guys like Kafelnikov, Rios, young Agassi, Leconte, Bruguera, Medvedev, Krajicek, Goran, Pioline, Stich, Safin, etc. who are very prone to mid-match mental lapses. Quite simply they just have a bad habit of going off the bonker for awhile, or dogging it for periods. In general a lot of top players will fit into one of these categories.
Imo, more often than not, however, it's the guys who are flightier mentally who tend to have the higher top gear. Courier struck me as a guy who like Muster, when their fitness was at its absolute peak and intimidating to all the other players, they could and were dominant. They're different from Chang, however, because they actually had forcing weapons, such as Muster's incredibly heavy, powerful, and relentless topspin; and Courier's whopping and laser accurate inside-out and inside-in forehand.
Still, guys like Courier and Muster are rarely able to sustain their dominance for long. Quite simply, their mind and focus and fitness levels just have to be almost unhumanly good to keep it up for long, and it rarely happens.
Guys in the other category tend to not find their "second wind" if/when injuries being to take their toll. In other words, a guy like Tommy Haas has more of a natural fighter's spirit in him than these other guys, and I feel that's why someone like him is able to repeatedly claw back from injury and more or less scrape his way back to where he was.
A guy like Korda, or Rios, or Bruguera, or Safin, or Pioline once their spirit is broken, it's pretty clear, and they go away pretty quickly. They may hang on a little after, later, but it's almost like they're just not their anymore.
To me, I liken it to how some types are completely unsettled by a major life change or move, whereas others can jump right back in and not skip a beat.
Imo, Muster and Courier were nightmare matchups for Bruguera. Bruguera played an exhausting game, a powerful but GRINDING game. At his best, he combined offense with defense like few ever have. However, in terms of fitness, he simply did not have the NATURAL stamina of guys like Muster or Courier imo, it's not just who worked harder (which both did), but also imo, that some guys just naturally have the capacitcy for GREAT stamina, and others don't.
Muster, however, was more difficult to overcome for Bruguera. Bruguera would momentarily "wilt" against both of them, BUT against Courier, his actual style matched up, imo, pretty favorably once you eliminate the focus/stamina variable.
Bruguera's inside-out forehand was as dangerous as anyone's on clay, so in a way, Courier and his most obvious strengths were neutralized. With Muster, his fierce inside-out forehand went to Bruguera's wide forehand, he had a great running forehand, but in general, he rarely would go for OFFENSE from this side. He would try to loop it back heavy and deep.
Furthermore, whereas Muster's backhand was not a weapon in the sense that he went for winners, in terms of consistently powerful and heavy spin, there have been one-handers to ever stand up to that measure. Muster's backhand was rock solid and heavy UNTIL you could break him down with flat shots...Bruguera don't do that. Bruguera could generate all kinds of angles and spins on the ball off the ground, but hitting flat as a forte was not one of them.
Even his slices, Bruguera had a natural tendency, a natural inclination, to try and over exaggerate EVERY kind of spin he tried. I think when you get that reptuation, it tends to feed into your identity, psyche/ego on a sub-conscious level. His slices, he NEVER tried to KNIFE it, he'd always try to SWERVE it, one of the most retardely exaggerated slice motions I've seen. His volleys? Almost ALWAYS he'd try to go for a cutesy drop volley...he was actually pretty darn good at these, but also it was very predictable.
All in all, this match to me just showed that Bruguera at peak intensity was definitely gonna come out on top against Courier more often than not, during his lapses, it was the opposite way around. It tends to even out. Was one of the most titanic and dramatic grand slam finals ever. I think it's an outrage that the Tennis Channel hasn't shown it yet when it is CLEARLY one of the greatest grand slam finals of all time imo. It had EVERY kind of drama. The last game, Courier you could see why he was so intimidating at that time, on the big points, Courier was NOT afraid to let it ALL hang out back then. Many a player would have crumbled under that pressure, and Bruguera almost did, visibly tightening up that last game, but in the end, it was just his day. Just as much as it was Courier claiming he lost his focus and LET Bruguera get back in that fifth set, I thought it was actually more Bruguera still carrying over the mopey, dogging it, hang-dog look of the fourth set. Meaning, it's a natural hangover from when you assume that kind of body language. It's difficult to just immediately shake it off. I felt like Bruguera did once he woke up and realized and slapped himself knowing that he was letting the moment he'd dreamed of singe he was a kid slip away.
This was a classic match of two kinds of top players. You have the Muster, Chang, Courier, Rafter, Lendl types who can seemingly focus for days, then you have the guys like Kafelnikov, Rios, young Agassi, Leconte, Bruguera, Medvedev, Krajicek, Goran, Pioline, Stich, Safin, etc. who are very prone to mid-match mental lapses. Quite simply they just have a bad habit of going off the bonker for awhile, or dogging it for periods. In general a lot of top players will fit into one of these categories.
Imo, more often than not, however, it's the guys who are flightier mentally who tend to have the higher top gear. Courier struck me as a guy who like Muster, when their fitness was at its absolute peak and intimidating to all the other players, they could and were dominant. They're different from Chang, however, because they actually had forcing weapons, such as Muster's incredibly heavy, powerful, and relentless topspin; and Courier's whopping and laser accurate inside-out and inside-in forehand.
Still, guys like Courier and Muster are rarely able to sustain their dominance for long. Quite simply, their mind and focus and fitness levels just have to be almost unhumanly good to keep it up for long, and it rarely happens.
Guys in the other category tend to not find their "second wind" if/when injuries being to take their toll. In other words, a guy like Tommy Haas has more of a natural fighter's spirit in him than these other guys, and I feel that's why someone like him is able to repeatedly claw back from injury and more or less scrape his way back to where he was.
A guy like Korda, or Rios, or Bruguera, or Safin, or Pioline once their spirit is broken, it's pretty clear, and they go away pretty quickly. They may hang on a little after, later, but it's almost like they're just not their anymore.
To me, I liken it to how some types are completely unsettled by a major life change or move, whereas others can jump right back in and not skip a beat.
Imo, Muster and Courier were nightmare matchups for Bruguera. Bruguera played an exhausting game, a powerful but GRINDING game. At his best, he combined offense with defense like few ever have. However, in terms of fitness, he simply did not have the NATURAL stamina of guys like Muster or Courier imo, it's not just who worked harder (which both did), but also imo, that some guys just naturally have the capacitcy for GREAT stamina, and others don't.
Muster, however, was more difficult to overcome for Bruguera. Bruguera would momentarily "wilt" against both of them, BUT against Courier, his actual style matched up, imo, pretty favorably once you eliminate the focus/stamina variable.
Bruguera's inside-out forehand was as dangerous as anyone's on clay, so in a way, Courier and his most obvious strengths were neutralized. With Muster, his fierce inside-out forehand went to Bruguera's wide forehand, he had a great running forehand, but in general, he rarely would go for OFFENSE from this side. He would try to loop it back heavy and deep.
Furthermore, whereas Muster's backhand was not a weapon in the sense that he went for winners, in terms of consistently powerful and heavy spin, there have been one-handers to ever stand up to that measure. Muster's backhand was rock solid and heavy UNTIL you could break him down with flat shots...Bruguera don't do that. Bruguera could generate all kinds of angles and spins on the ball off the ground, but hitting flat as a forte was not one of them.
Even his slices, Bruguera had a natural tendency, a natural inclination, to try and over exaggerate EVERY kind of spin he tried. I think when you get that reptuation, it tends to feed into your identity, psyche/ego on a sub-conscious level. His slices, he NEVER tried to KNIFE it, he'd always try to SWERVE it, one of the most retardely exaggerated slice motions I've seen. His volleys? Almost ALWAYS he'd try to go for a cutesy drop volley...he was actually pretty darn good at these, but also it was very predictable.
All in all, this match to me just showed that Bruguera at peak intensity was definitely gonna come out on top against Courier more often than not, during his lapses, it was the opposite way around. It tends to even out. Was one of the most titanic and dramatic grand slam finals ever. I think it's an outrage that the Tennis Channel hasn't shown it yet when it is CLEARLY one of the greatest grand slam finals of all time imo. It had EVERY kind of drama. The last game, Courier you could see why he was so intimidating at that time, on the big points, Courier was NOT afraid to let it ALL hang out back then. Many a player would have crumbled under that pressure, and Bruguera almost did, visibly tightening up that last game, but in the end, it was just his day. Just as much as it was Courier claiming he lost his focus and LET Bruguera get back in that fifth set, I thought it was actually more Bruguera still carrying over the mopey, dogging it, hang-dog look of the fourth set. Meaning, it's a natural hangover from when you assume that kind of body language. It's difficult to just immediately shake it off. I felt like Bruguera did once he woke up and realized and slapped himself knowing that he was letting the moment he'd dreamed of singe he was a kid slip away.
abmk
Bionic Poster
!tym,
great post ,I'd say courier earned the break in the 5th set, forcing errors from bruguera; ,bruguera earned the 1st break to get back on serve, but the 2nd break, courier partially handed it to him and yes, bruguera did get tight at the end and courier was giving his all, but bruguera managed to close things out. Great match ..
I'd re-watched the kuerten-bruguera finals in 97 a few days before this and have to say there is really no comparision b/w this bruguera and the one in 97 final, except for some flashes of brilliance in the 2nd set
as far as drop volleys are concerned, yes bruguera was pretty good at those, in this match , he made a BH drop volley that was absolutely great ( in the 1st set )
great post ,I'd say courier earned the break in the 5th set, forcing errors from bruguera; ,bruguera earned the 1st break to get back on serve, but the 2nd break, courier partially handed it to him and yes, bruguera did get tight at the end and courier was giving his all, but bruguera managed to close things out. Great match ..
I'd re-watched the kuerten-bruguera finals in 97 a few days before this and have to say there is really no comparision b/w this bruguera and the one in 97 final, except for some flashes of brilliance in the 2nd set
as far as drop volleys are concerned, yes bruguera was pretty good at those, in this match , he made a BH drop volley that was absolutely great ( in the 1st set )
Last edited:
I haven't watched the match in years, but saw it many times. It's probably a bit of both, but imo, Bruguera at his highest level in this match was better than Courier. This has nothing to do with individual matchups though. Imo, Courier would match up better with Guga for obvious reasons.... I still didn't like the way Courier basically said that he should have won the match, when frankly I thought Bruguera gave him a lot more mental lapses than he did, and at their best levels, I thought Bruguera edged him out in this match. Or rather, I felt the way Courier phrased it that he basically said that he LET Bruguera win that match, ALLOWED him to, that it was all on him, that really he GAVE it to him...basically that was the feeling I got from what he said (biased, amittedly as I am).
Bruguera said he played the 97 final more hoping that Kuerten would lose it than try to win it. That's definitely part of it. I wouldn't say that he was choking or anything, but it was clear that he was very tight, thinking that after the injury riddled years, this was his chance again. I was dissapointed with his effort in the third set, where I thought it was pretty clear near the end that he'd thrown in the towel. Good thing about Chang, doesn't matter if he was playing well or not, a good style matchup or not, down to sets to none or not, 5-love, love-40, but he was still gonna keep coming at you like a pugnacious little bulldog until you actually slayed him with a stake through the heart and cut off his tongue and posted it on a pole in the middle of the clay....
Bruguera played some great tennis and some bad tennis in 97 in his comeback attempt. What you saw in the 97 finals was a guy whose confidence was neither here nor there, it's a kind of no man's land I think for returning top players...it tends to, can, go either way.
Still, the biggest problems were two-fold. Guga came out with a I have NOTHING to lose attitude, ALL the pressure is on him attitude. That is VERY dangerous with slap-happy players like him. Bruguera HOPED he would have the deer in the headlights look...like, ahem, say Gaudio! Lol (HOW did Coria ever manage to GIVE that match away when the other guy was trying just as hard to GIVE it to him?).
The other problem was that frankly Guga is a HORRIBLE matchup for Bruguera. Bruguera needs to find his striking rhythm, once he does, and locks-in, like ALL "great" groundstrokers, he becomes dangerous and very difficult to beat. It's all about establishing your "blasting rhythm" at the highest levels. Heck, look what happened when Ashe took Connors out of that rhythm. You can take that away from great baseliners sometimes with off-speed dink, or simply by not giving them the chance by rushing them.
Before the match, McEnroe was right. He said to him, Bruguera was playing with not the confidence or strength as he was a few years ago, that he thought was at maybe 80-85% of what he had been. I think that's a pretty fair assesment, and that he thought because of that Guga would have a real shot, AND that he thought RAFTER would perhaps be the tougher match up. I think so, I think Rafter at that point in their careers would have unsettled Guga more at that stage for sure.
Bruguera, ultimately, the main thing is that it's just like with Nadal against Del Potro. He couldn't BOUNCE the ball out of Guga's strike zone, was robbed of the time, became and visibly began to look unsettled/uncomfortable (EVEN Nadal could not completely hide this natural body language of when players are doubting themselves out there/feeling embarrassed, and helpless in a bad matchup/bad day combo). Bruguera's average balls would bounce PLUM in Guga's strike zone.
It's just I think the absolute worst style matchup you could think of for him.
Still, I DON'T agree with those who pass off Bruguera's 93 French has somehow a fluke, that he got lucky because he didn't get the real Courier or whatever, or that his run was not impressive. I don't care who you are, a 6-love, 6-love, 6-love thrashing on clay against ANY fellow pro is SCARY. He absolutely DECIMATED the field on his way to that final and Was CLEARLY the IN form man that tournament. His UTTER decimation of Medvedev in the semis was never shown in the states, and I think that's part of the problem. People say Guga's best level is so easily better than Bruguera's but, I say in WHAT matchups? Against serve and volleyers, I'm not so sure. Against, Medvedev, I'm not so sure. Imo, Medvedev and Kafelnikov, two mirror-clones, matched up very well with Guga in terms of style. It's their mental weakness that hurt them, but they were very decent matchups for him. Guga never decimated Medvedev anywhere near to the degree Bruguera was able to, not just once, but twice (the 97 Lipton, I remember one person saying something like Medvedev was able to win like only four points or something the entire 6-love first set).
That 93 semi, was a lot like how Guga performed in the 97 final, in the sense, it was a I'm playing to win body language, loose as a goose, swinging from the hips.
That kind of body language you just can't fake. We all know that feeling. When you wake up with it, you just feel that split second alert to EVERYTHING you're opponent throws at you, it's almost that feeling that you can see what's coming before it's coming, like you have this sixth sense, and can SENSE where every ball is landing and be there before it gets there. That split second extra rush you get is the difference between lacing winners left and right, painting lines, and pushing long or short, that sluggish look and feeling.
Even still, at their best levels, I'd take Guga 7.89999999 times out of 10. I'm sorry, it's just the way of the matchup.
Like I said, there are guys who Courier at his peak level on clay would also simply matchup better with. The peak level of anyone who's managed to dominate on clay for a period of time is nothing to sneeze at. They're all equally formidable in their own way. I've always felt you can with in tennis with A LOT of different styles. I've seen many look "invicible" at times through the years during periods of peak confidence. It just goes in cycles. But NO ONE can maintain a peak both physically and in terms of confidence forever. What goes up ALWAYS must come crashing down eventually in tennis. It's a brutal dog eat dog world, PACK mentality style, for realz.
The second you show weakness, the mystique is gone, every other dog moves in to shred your confidence to just absolute pieces.
Ultimately, EVERY style played to its pinnacle has the capacity to just annihilate I feel. I mean even if God were a pusher, by gosh, he would be the best darn pusher in the world and he ain't going to lose ANY points...EVER, guaranteed, IF he so chose to. That's just how it is in tennis.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
I'd agree with most of your points in your post . 
This match , even I felt showed that at their best, against each other, bruguera was a step ahead of courier on clay. He won both their matches at RG , but lost their other 3 matches on clay - putting in his best at the FO ..
Btw I am curious to know who/what referred to bruguera's win as a fluke ? Sure, courier didn't play at his best, but he still played well , even bruguera who played well, had his lapses ...
Also, as far as the 97 finals is concerned, both of them came out VERY nervously, but kuerten was the one who managed to shake it off quickly
This match , even I felt showed that at their best, against each other, bruguera was a step ahead of courier on clay. He won both their matches at RG , but lost their other 3 matches on clay - putting in his best at the FO ..
Btw I am curious to know who/what referred to bruguera's win as a fluke ? Sure, courier didn't play at his best, but he still played well , even bruguera who played well, had his lapses ...
Also, as far as the 97 finals is concerned, both of them came out VERY nervously, but kuerten was the one who managed to shake it off quickly
Last edited:
Btw, regarding the individual posters who felt this, it's not important. Just a difference of opinion and/or who you're more a fan of, everyone has one, it's not really a big deal either way.
As for the beginning of the final, I don't remember much. I watched the match once, and I just remember being frustrated at why Bruguera wasn't willing to dig deeper. Yes, he was getting pasted, but still, come on, it's the French Open final, you've had two injury plagued years now, so just lay it on the line. I don't know what it was, but he just felt to me really "flat" I think is the word, and could just never get that really "activated" look you see from players when their mind and body both are really actively engaged in a match. I kind of liken it to how Ferrero in his first French final, just had that same feel to him, Safin in that Johansson Australian final. I just don't get it, sometimes you have days like that, whether it be nerves, your opponent in the zone, or whatever else, but geez, LAY IT on the line, do something, slap your face, pour a bucket of water on your head, something.
In other words, you know how Becker was one of those guys where he was on or off, "it" or not. BUT, the difference is that on his bad or flat days or when the other guys in the zone like Stich in that Wimbledon final, he didn't just lay down and die, and almost look eager to shake hands in the end and just get it over with.
Becker I remembered was freaking howling to the moon. When Becker had these days where he just couldn't get it going (and ALL players get these days), he would start howling and screaming and cursing at himself in German in that embarrassing way of his.
That was my biggest frustration with his performance that day, he didn't leave it all on the line. If you lose, if you get smoked, ok, whatever, it happens to EVERYONE, even the GOAT's level candidates, but don't just raise the white flag in the third set, and wear the no ma's, too good today for me chap, you seem like a great guy, and maybe our girlfriends can share lunch sometime in the clubhouse body language. That's what I loved about Connors and Chang, they were going for your throat no matter how good or bad they were playing, irrespective of what their opponent was doing to them.
Anyway, I tried to download the match, but could get no sound. Watched the highlights, and that was about it. They probably were both tight in the beginning, but I don't remember it lasting for long, not for Guga at least. I just remember him zoning, and years later saying that he could never play that well again, that when you get older, you think too much, think a lot more, that he just swung out that day and everything was just going in like it was practice and he couldn't believe it.
This was in response to the reporter saying that when Bruguera was younger, he seemed to swing with such freedom and without fear, he was so loose (this is what struck them), but then as he got older, and the injuries, and years wore on, he seemed to lose that. That (they) the press had observed that he just wasn't as "free" and unhibited in his play anymore. And if he thought he was seeing the same thing in himself.
And Guga, responded as above, basically, saying oh yeah, of course, when you're young you don't think too much. Another way to think of it is that I think as you get older and more experienced in life, you get more JADED.
You see more good and bad, and as you become more aware of the possibility of failure, and realize how hard it really is to do what you do, now it's suddenly harder.
Navratalova is one who is ALWAYS one to point this out. Saying that when your young and stupid, it's easy to just swing for the fences. You're too stupid, you don't know any better. In other words, as you get older, you become more aware of how many different ways there are to LOSE...rather than there are to win. It's really how you look at it, and that's what age and "life experience" does to you. You become dissilusioned...rather than just going straight for the jugular, going straight for the throat. You gonna just stand there thinking about tackling somebody, and which angle to take, and which foot to take off on, and how deep should I bend my knees before taking off, OR you gonna just TACKLE him for Christ's sake!
I felt like Bruguera was thinking philosophical, what have I been through to get back here these past few years, and all that "self-help" mumbo jumbo? And I think Guga was thinking, hey that trophy looks cool, I want to win one of these too!
Btw, Courier's racket was the Wilson Pro Straff 6.0 85, don't know if it was the St. Vincent batch (I think it was), but for what it's worth Courier was a well-known 6.0 85 user, as was Mary Pierce back in those early years too. He strung his rackets very tight, like 67lbs. or so I believe, with plain synthetic gut (don't know if he was using the fabled Gosen JC Courier namesake string back then or not though). Back then, Courier was thought to be unusual in that he didn't use VS natural gut. Back then, natural gut was basically considered like Luxilon these days, i.e. the absolute pinnacle in performance, and if you weren't using it and paying for it out of your own pocket, you were losing. Courier, however, didn't like the excessive spring of gut, and preferred the more predictable string bed of plain old synthetic gut strung tight.
It suited his game very well, me thinks. A board like response from a stiffer small headed frame. I think it gave him the pin point bullet-like response and control he desired on his forehand.
As for Bruguera, McEnroe couldn't get over how small the grip Bruguera used was. He said he's got to use the smallest grip on tour from when he picked up his racket or something to that effect. He did this, as noted, to try and get extra whip on the ball. As Cliff Drysdale would always be want to point out during Bruguera matches, Bruguera's got the whippiest, wristiest, forehand motion in the history of the game and it's not really even close.
Back then, Bruguera also was known to string his rackets very, very low. I believe the range he'd string at was something like 46lbs. to 52 or 53lbs. I don't believe he used gut, but instead some Technifibre multifilament (maybe an earlier version of 515? I don't know exactly).
You can hear the difference in pitch between the looseness of Bruguera's harmonic strings and tension and Courier's crisper, cleaner, purer, more plank-like sounding string bed.
As for the actual model, I think Thomas Martinez, stringer to the pros, said it was a Kneissel White Star or something or other painted or something or other. Honestly, I'm not exactly sure. I've always been curious about that too. I really don't know what the heck he was using, I just know it's one of the FUGliest rackets I've ever had the misfortune of laying my eyes on. I'm not a fan of ugly rackets, and that racket to me, was most definitely ugly. First, there was the ugly plain black paint job. Next, there was the Volkswagen Bug like, curves of the thing...eww, puke city. I mean seriously, what were these engineers thinking when they designed this thing?
I will say that the racket did look rather primitive, not unlike Courier's.
I don't imagine that it could have been that powerful, as Bruguera switched to Yonex for endorsement money reasons it seems once he became a star. He said that it took him awhile to adjust to the new frame, as he had to adjust his strokes to tame the power, it was more powerful than he was used to. He said it took him awile to get used to that, that he felt he couldn't swing out as freely with the RD-7.
The RD-7 was not a tremendously powerful racket by the way. It has decent pop for a player's racket, but really it's not a power racket by ANY stretch of the imagination. A Pure Drive Plus feels about 2.5 to 3 or even 4 times more powerful to me by comparison, the difference in power was quite dramatic to me. As back then I used the RD-7, and fell into the hype of the Pure Drive rage going on back then. I realized that it's just a plain sucky racket with minimal control, but made serving bombs on the serve easy.
Now, of course, I realize that it's the STRINGS that make the real difference. Polys changed the way we all think about playing this game. With polys, I just ALWAYS feel like I want to try and bash the ball...why? Because I feel like it may actualy have a chance to go in. With gut, man, if you struing it in the mid 50s, just a mere tap and you were afraid the ball was liable to hit the back fence.
As for the beginning of the final, I don't remember much. I watched the match once, and I just remember being frustrated at why Bruguera wasn't willing to dig deeper. Yes, he was getting pasted, but still, come on, it's the French Open final, you've had two injury plagued years now, so just lay it on the line. I don't know what it was, but he just felt to me really "flat" I think is the word, and could just never get that really "activated" look you see from players when their mind and body both are really actively engaged in a match. I kind of liken it to how Ferrero in his first French final, just had that same feel to him, Safin in that Johansson Australian final. I just don't get it, sometimes you have days like that, whether it be nerves, your opponent in the zone, or whatever else, but geez, LAY IT on the line, do something, slap your face, pour a bucket of water on your head, something.
In other words, you know how Becker was one of those guys where he was on or off, "it" or not. BUT, the difference is that on his bad or flat days or when the other guys in the zone like Stich in that Wimbledon final, he didn't just lay down and die, and almost look eager to shake hands in the end and just get it over with.
Becker I remembered was freaking howling to the moon. When Becker had these days where he just couldn't get it going (and ALL players get these days), he would start howling and screaming and cursing at himself in German in that embarrassing way of his.
That was my biggest frustration with his performance that day, he didn't leave it all on the line. If you lose, if you get smoked, ok, whatever, it happens to EVERYONE, even the GOAT's level candidates, but don't just raise the white flag in the third set, and wear the no ma's, too good today for me chap, you seem like a great guy, and maybe our girlfriends can share lunch sometime in the clubhouse body language. That's what I loved about Connors and Chang, they were going for your throat no matter how good or bad they were playing, irrespective of what their opponent was doing to them.
Anyway, I tried to download the match, but could get no sound. Watched the highlights, and that was about it. They probably were both tight in the beginning, but I don't remember it lasting for long, not for Guga at least. I just remember him zoning, and years later saying that he could never play that well again, that when you get older, you think too much, think a lot more, that he just swung out that day and everything was just going in like it was practice and he couldn't believe it.
This was in response to the reporter saying that when Bruguera was younger, he seemed to swing with such freedom and without fear, he was so loose (this is what struck them), but then as he got older, and the injuries, and years wore on, he seemed to lose that. That (they) the press had observed that he just wasn't as "free" and unhibited in his play anymore. And if he thought he was seeing the same thing in himself.
And Guga, responded as above, basically, saying oh yeah, of course, when you're young you don't think too much. Another way to think of it is that I think as you get older and more experienced in life, you get more JADED.
You see more good and bad, and as you become more aware of the possibility of failure, and realize how hard it really is to do what you do, now it's suddenly harder.
Navratalova is one who is ALWAYS one to point this out. Saying that when your young and stupid, it's easy to just swing for the fences. You're too stupid, you don't know any better. In other words, as you get older, you become more aware of how many different ways there are to LOSE...rather than there are to win. It's really how you look at it, and that's what age and "life experience" does to you. You become dissilusioned...rather than just going straight for the jugular, going straight for the throat. You gonna just stand there thinking about tackling somebody, and which angle to take, and which foot to take off on, and how deep should I bend my knees before taking off, OR you gonna just TACKLE him for Christ's sake!
I felt like Bruguera was thinking philosophical, what have I been through to get back here these past few years, and all that "self-help" mumbo jumbo? And I think Guga was thinking, hey that trophy looks cool, I want to win one of these too!
Btw, Courier's racket was the Wilson Pro Straff 6.0 85, don't know if it was the St. Vincent batch (I think it was), but for what it's worth Courier was a well-known 6.0 85 user, as was Mary Pierce back in those early years too. He strung his rackets very tight, like 67lbs. or so I believe, with plain synthetic gut (don't know if he was using the fabled Gosen JC Courier namesake string back then or not though). Back then, Courier was thought to be unusual in that he didn't use VS natural gut. Back then, natural gut was basically considered like Luxilon these days, i.e. the absolute pinnacle in performance, and if you weren't using it and paying for it out of your own pocket, you were losing. Courier, however, didn't like the excessive spring of gut, and preferred the more predictable string bed of plain old synthetic gut strung tight.
It suited his game very well, me thinks. A board like response from a stiffer small headed frame. I think it gave him the pin point bullet-like response and control he desired on his forehand.
As for Bruguera, McEnroe couldn't get over how small the grip Bruguera used was. He said he's got to use the smallest grip on tour from when he picked up his racket or something to that effect. He did this, as noted, to try and get extra whip on the ball. As Cliff Drysdale would always be want to point out during Bruguera matches, Bruguera's got the whippiest, wristiest, forehand motion in the history of the game and it's not really even close.
Back then, Bruguera also was known to string his rackets very, very low. I believe the range he'd string at was something like 46lbs. to 52 or 53lbs. I don't believe he used gut, but instead some Technifibre multifilament (maybe an earlier version of 515? I don't know exactly).
You can hear the difference in pitch between the looseness of Bruguera's harmonic strings and tension and Courier's crisper, cleaner, purer, more plank-like sounding string bed.
As for the actual model, I think Thomas Martinez, stringer to the pros, said it was a Kneissel White Star or something or other painted or something or other. Honestly, I'm not exactly sure. I've always been curious about that too. I really don't know what the heck he was using, I just know it's one of the FUGliest rackets I've ever had the misfortune of laying my eyes on. I'm not a fan of ugly rackets, and that racket to me, was most definitely ugly. First, there was the ugly plain black paint job. Next, there was the Volkswagen Bug like, curves of the thing...eww, puke city. I mean seriously, what were these engineers thinking when they designed this thing?
I will say that the racket did look rather primitive, not unlike Courier's.
I don't imagine that it could have been that powerful, as Bruguera switched to Yonex for endorsement money reasons it seems once he became a star. He said that it took him awhile to adjust to the new frame, as he had to adjust his strokes to tame the power, it was more powerful than he was used to. He said it took him awile to get used to that, that he felt he couldn't swing out as freely with the RD-7.
The RD-7 was not a tremendously powerful racket by the way. It has decent pop for a player's racket, but really it's not a power racket by ANY stretch of the imagination. A Pure Drive Plus feels about 2.5 to 3 or even 4 times more powerful to me by comparison, the difference in power was quite dramatic to me. As back then I used the RD-7, and fell into the hype of the Pure Drive rage going on back then. I realized that it's just a plain sucky racket with minimal control, but made serving bombs on the serve easy.
Now, of course, I realize that it's the STRINGS that make the real difference. Polys changed the way we all think about playing this game. With polys, I just ALWAYS feel like I want to try and bash the ball...why? Because I feel like it may actualy have a chance to go in. With gut, man, if you struing it in the mid 50s, just a mere tap and you were afraid the ball was liable to hit the back fence.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
It could even happen to Laver. BUT, Laver would always try to play his way out of it, always struggling to find something that will work, something that will be kryptonite to his opponent.
If he couldn't out-hit, he could out-place, if he couldn't out-place, he could out-touch, if he couldn't out-touch, then out-think. Just give him one more shot to find a way to turn things around.
He had the determination of Nadal, tenacity of Connors, the backcourt game of Federer, and the volleys of Edberg . . . always believing that he could win.
Last edited:
I don't know, ABMK, if you've seen this, it's a boxscore I found in the St. Petersburg Times.
How Bruguera won
Here is the box score of Sergi Bruguera's 6-4, 2-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-3 victory over Jim Courier in the men's final at the French Open:
Bruguera Courier
Aces 7 5
Double faults 2 1
First service % 56 56
Break points won 26 14
Unforced errors 66 83
Forced errors 33 16
Total points won 153 146
How Bruguera won
Here is the box score of Sergi Bruguera's 6-4, 2-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-3 victory over Jim Courier in the men's final at the French Open:
Bruguera Courier
Aces 7 5
Double faults 2 1
First service % 56 56
Break points won 26 14
Unforced errors 66 83
Forced errors 33 16
Total points won 153 146
Unfortunately, Laver was before my time. According to JON NIEDNAGEL (lol...), he was an ISTP though like many other famous "triers" and "competers" like Muster, Graf, Hewitt, Chang, Navratalova, McEnroe, Connors, Seles...Reggie Miller, Bird, Jordan, etc. in basketball.
ISTP's are basically supposed to be go for your throat competive. And yet, of course, personas do vary based on genetics and upbringing too. There's room for variation, but I think still the competitive nature of Laver whilst understated in interviews MUST have been there burning fiery as all other great ISTP's under the surface.
The one I'd like to see typed is Bruguera, but in conversing briefly with BTI, I was told they don't really know, haven't really looked into him. He used more "flick" than ANY player I've ever seen, including McEnroe. Even his serve just seemed to be all wrist...much to McEnroe's consternation when he briefly coached him. He said, he tried to get him to use his body on the serve, and that he had the racket head speed, a good height, he thought to be a big server if he would just get even a little of his body into it. He said..."but you know what they say about teaching an old dog new tricks...." It's really puzzling to me how guys with bright future prospects, WHY don't their handlers see that the time to chang, even RADICALLY change, their service motion is right NOW, when you're still young and in the juniors and it doesn't matter much in the end. That's what I admire about the Richard Williams and Pete Fisher. These guys had freaking vision, they recognized that the point isn't to win now, but later. LONG-term development should ALWAYS come at the expense of short-term if it is necessary. Even Edberg falls into this category. He wanted to be a serve and volleyer and KNEW that that was his greatest talent, but the coaches in Sweden were all about the two-hander back then due to Borg. He switched to a one-hander, VERY late in the junior development stages, and look at the results now looking back!
Nadal's motion reminds me of Connors. It's not necessarily an ugly motion, or that they don't really get the kinetic linking in, it's more that it just looks like their GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS of what consistutes a textbook serve. In other words, it looks more like a warm-up motion. They lollipop their serve, go through the necessary motions, but without the necessary CONVICTION behind it. Roddick just went for the jugular one day messing around after practice, and THAT'S how the world's fastest serve was born, by ACCIDENT, just FOOLING AROUND. So often, the great inventions are spontaneously combusted if you know what I mean.
Anyway...back to Laver. From what little I've seen, I quite admired most of all the silikiness of his movement. He was like watching swan lake, but with a little bit of a corkscrew thrown in at the end of the swing I felt. Meaning, the cadence of watching his play and strokes felt to me more like slow and smooth, then KAPOW, slow and smooth, then KAPOW. When I think about his game I just think about fine dynamic linkage. Dyanmic linkage. All the parts intertwined and *skipping* (NOT hopping) seamlessly from one step to another. He was a prosperous golden child on court, a beam of light seamed to surround and follow his every move. He reminded me of a gilded grass hopper with wings that could fly and sometimes soar when the mood was right and the stars aligned.
Really dug the cat, but too far ahead (err...rather behind my time) for me to really look into him. There's just not enough context for me to get into that generation of players. You can admire a single player or two of an era, but if you don't really "feel" or "get" or "know" the context of their generation and the tournaments they were playing in, then it's hard to "relive" the moments as they should be remembered, in other words.
Btw, it's weird, but Niednagle lists Nadal as an ENTP, as he does Federer, and Safin, and Guga, and Sampras, and Sharapova. ENTP's in general are the most chameleon like in terms of persona, meaning depending on upbringing they tend to assume the widest variety of seeming personalities (also the most common of types), and to Nienagle the "master of one-upmanship" type.
In any case, that's a VERY wide range there, 'cause all them dudes and dudettes seem to strum from a different hum.
Also, earlier I said how top players tend to fall into one of two mental categories. The wishy-washy types who have a top gear or the "trier" types who have an ALMOST top gear. In general, both "types" seem to be able win 1 to maybe 3 slams or so, but never really more than that, never enough to warrant consideration as one of the all-time greats in the end. The "pantheon" level guys usually have one thing that separates them I feel. The wishy-washy types with talent are too wishy-washy (obviously), and the trier types just aren't QUITE talented enough to sustain themselves once their focus or fitness drops even a little hair. The pantheon greats almost without exception ALWAYS HAVE BOTH.
...of course, to be fair, injuries are sometimes unavaoidable. Guga without the injuries you have to believe would have won at least one more French, and even Bruguera I would think it wouldn't have been that far-fetched had he stayed healthy, that he also would have one more French, maybe two. You just never know in this sport. The lack of a true off season leads to such unpredictability in the sustainability of its stars. In basketball, the same top guys are pretty much there year after year after year, EVEN WITH *inevitable* surgeries along the way (hey, it's professional sports...it's unavoidable for the most part, the body was never meant to be overworked so much).
abmk
Bionic Poster
no, hadn't seen this
break points won 26 and 14 ????? :shock:
the distinction b/w what is a forced error and what is unforced can vary among those who count I'd suppose
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
I have separated the Forehand winners and the forehand volley winners, ditto for backhand winners and backhand volley winners
But I put the errors of the FH wing ( either groundstroke or volley) into FH UE or FH FE depending on whether the error was unforced or forced , ditto for the BH wing
PS -> passing shot
Oh yes, I see the volley winners now. And the volley errors are included in UE and FE -- all clear now.
Last edited:
Those break points are one of those errors that you just wonder what's going on.
What I find interesting about the boxscore is that it has each player making a total of 99 forced and unforced errors -- very close to your numbers (I don't know if theirs include the double-faults, but that's a minor point).
So yeah, your total errors just about line up with the boxscore, but whoever did it tended to judge errors as unforced, while you marked down a lot of those errors as forced. Good example of how it's all in the eye of the beholder.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, another thing is no winners in that boxscore ??? even though they have the errors - forced and unforced ????
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
according to NBC, Bruguera was 5 of 26 on break points. I think the box score just had a typo.
nice work, abmk. I'm pretty surprised by your net stats on Courier. 71 approaches is a rather high number for anyone on clay, let alone Jim Courier.
I wonder if the fact that he spent so much more time on court prior to the final than Bruguera was a factor in his coming forward so much(he spent over 5 hours more on court than Bruguera, that's a pretty big difference)
Last edited:
Thing is, ABMK and the ATP both have Bruguera converting 5 of 21. NBC has 5 of 26. The boxscore just says 26 break points were "won".
I'm still confused here. ABMK, when you say 5 of 21, I understand that to mean 5 won out of 21 total break points, is that correct?
kalic
Professional
Bruguera- Yonex RD7, Courier- Wilson PS85
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
so, has !Tym 'retired' from the boards? all his posts are gone.
I would think they got 26 from NBC, so if its wrong, its not their fault.
The typo is break points won, looks like they just forgot a number - the number of breaks.
I would think they got 26 from NBC, so if its wrong, its not their fault.
The typo is break points won, looks like they just forgot a number - the number of breaks.
It may be a good idea for all of us to save whatever posts/threads we value (I don't know the answer to your question, by the way; I'm just making a general suggestion).
Understood, and agreed.
I think he did say something like that, I hope he's okay too.
This is part of the New York Times report:
LA Times:
The Gainesville Sun adds that Courier earned 14 break points himself, just like in the boxscore.
So the print media seem to have a total of 40 break points: 26 for Bruguera (also given by NBC) and 14 for Courier.
On the other hand, ABMK's break points agree exactly with the ATP, for both players: 21 for Bruguera, 12 for Courier.
LA Times:
The Gainesville Sun adds that Courier earned 14 break points himself, just like in the boxscore.
So the print media seem to have a total of 40 break points: 26 for Bruguera (also given by NBC) and 14 for Courier.
On the other hand, ABMK's break points agree exactly with the ATP, for both players: 21 for Bruguera, 12 for Courier.
Last edited:
1
1970CRBase
Guest
Looks like !Tym packed up all his posts and walked away. He was one of the only few posters I liked reading on tt.
I remember he was bothered about the disrespect posters here have towards players. ie all the silly "what if...." "in their prime who.." threads.
What a pity.
Another press report on this match, this one from the Reading Eagle: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SpguAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NaEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1354,4476159.
And a detailed boxscore here: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zSNUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-o0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5672,3644080
It credits Courier with 40 winners, a little lower than your 42.
If you look at the detailed boxscore in the second link I gave, they give Bruguera a total of 46 "winning shots," again agreeing with your count. They give Courier only 35 of these "winning shots" so he's missing some winners there.
Both links have Courier making 83 UE and Bruguera 66. The New York Times and the LA Times both report 67 UE by Courier, not Bruguera (possibly they took Sergi's 66 errors and credited them to Courier, then adding Jim's sole double-fault).
And a detailed boxscore here: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zSNUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-o0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5672,3644080
The Reading Eagle report I just found has 46 winners by Bruguera, agreeing exactly with your own count of his non-service winners.
It credits Courier with 40 winners, a little lower than your 42.
If you look at the detailed boxscore in the second link I gave, they give Bruguera a total of 46 "winning shots," again agreeing with your count. They give Courier only 35 of these "winning shots" so he's missing some winners there.
Both links have Courier making 83 UE and Bruguera 66. The New York Times and the LA Times both report 67 UE by Courier, not Bruguera (possibly they took Sergi's 66 errors and credited them to Courier, then adding Jim's sole double-fault).
Last edited:
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
came across some UE counts on Bruguera at this tournament.
1st round vs Leconte: 25
2nd round vs Champion(triple bagel) 13
3rd round vs Larsson: 16
QF vs Sampras: 24
SF vs Medvedev: 9
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/19...ras-and-edberg-sergi-bruguera-ctislav-dosedel
and on the flip side:
That's an incredible number for such a quick match.
1st round vs Leconte: 25
2nd round vs Champion(triple bagel) 13
3rd round vs Larsson: 16
QF vs Sampras: 24
SF vs Medvedev: 9
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/19...ras-and-edberg-sergi-bruguera-ctislav-dosedel
and on the flip side:
That's an incredible number for such a quick match.
Was it not the Yonex rd7? Great player btw.. Miss claycourt tennis like that, and he could do anything on the court, not only grind away on clay.
forehandblast
Rookie
I could see him possibly winning in 94 in that case. Not 95 and 96, he was just too declined and burnt out both physically and mentally by then. Even if he beat Sampras in 96 he probably goes on to lose to a very in form Kafelnikov.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Longest sentence ever.
Last edited:
Ronaldo
Bionic Poster
Only the match was longer
NonP
Legend
I know I posted this vid in the "Greatest Chokes" thread last weekend but figured I'd share it again here, not just because it's a fantastic set of highlights (courtesy of YT's indefatigable FrancisTennis) but also 'cause I've got a few more things to add:
Now the addendums. To repeat my earlier observation, if the '91 FO final ushered in a new era of knock-'em-dead dirtballing this was its apex, with two clay-court greats giving their all for the entire duration of five brutal sets. In fact I'll go a step further than our (inactive) Bruguera cheerleader @!Tym: this was the very greatest contest at RG since 1968, if not the single greatest match in FO history period, and had either Bruguera or Courier been a marquee name this final would be included in just about every greatest-matches list.
I've discussed why in more detail but to wit, you rarely see this level of high-octane jousting between two heavyweights at their peak. Usually one of 'em is somewhat green or in subtle yet clear decline, but that's not the case here, with Sergi and Jim almost equaling their respective career-high GW% on clay - 63.3% in '94 and 64.5% in '92 or a sensational 66.1% in the CC season proper - with 62.2% and 63.8% for the '93 season. To put this in perspective, Kafelnikov, Moya, Costa and Wawrinka (plus Chang and Gaudio without rounding up) are among the FO champs who were never admitted to the exclusive 60% Club (excluding DC and de facto exo WTC), and even Ferrero and Federer did so just barely with less than 61.0% for the season ('01 and '05, if you care to know). And even the uber-reliable Novak has yet to match '93 (or '92 for that matter) Jim's seasonal average.
But it's not until you look at these two's GW%s for '93 RG that you realize what a clash of the titans this final was: 61.2% for Courier vs. a historic 68.8% for Bruguera who as Tym noted was wont to go thru the motions except for the biggie. Those %s are brought down drastically by the grueling 5-setter, but Jim still turned in a performance almost everyone else would be proud of while Sergi flirted with the rarefied 70% mark which he likely breaks without having to dispatch another fellow 60%er in Sampras (QF). In fact the only closest OE equivalent I know of is the '81 FO final, but while Borg predictably dominated the season with 66.7% and Lendl posted a damn impressive 62.4% (ATP-certified events only) in his own right a strained back hobbled Ivan at RG, hence his mediocre 53.2% for the event vs. Borg's sky-high 71.1%. Lendl did do much better at the '84 edition with 64.1% and Mac was no chopped liver himself with 61.2%, but even in his virtually matchless form Mac the net wizard would be hard-pressed to maintain it on clay for a full 5 sets vs. an ATG dirtballer, as we saw in that year's final where the percentages gradually shifted to Ivan.
Which brings us to my final point. Compare the above highlights with these from the much-ballyhooed '11 SF between Fed and Novak:
Now ask yourself, in all honesty, whether Bruguera and Courier yield an inch to these guys. If anything it's clear they hit heavier balls with more topspin, and with even more racquet head speed when called for. Also notice how both Sergi and Jim, the stereotyped baseline-hugging ball bashers, attacked the net more than either Fed or Novak despite the heavy onslaught from the other side. When I described the '93 final as "an all-out-war" I wasn't at all exaggerating. These two threw the proverbial kitchen sink at each other, and even when Jim lost his lead and then gave up another break in the 5th set he refused to wilt, as one can see in the ATG CP which Sergi fittingly took with a thread-the-needle pass after a furious baseline exchange.
That Bruguera beats either Fedovic in 4 sets tops. You might think Fed with a similar serving performance would present unsolvable problems for anyone not named Nadal, Borg or perhaps Kuerten, but compare the vids again and you'll see that Sergi was actually standing closer to the baseline than Novak on return. The Spaniard "dirtballer" was a much more aggressive returner than most fans think - check out the clip's very 1st point for a most dazzling example - which is one of the reasons why he had a good record vs. Sampras, and while even Pete didn't always equal/surpass Fed's serving that day on clay Sergi should still be able to get Fed's URS% down from 42% to at least a more manageable 35% like he did in his '96 2nd-rounder vs. Pete. (and this Sergi was coming back from an injury, though he did almost turn back the clock vs. an inspired Pistol). And he'd have a significant advantage off the ground vs. Fed and even Novak. Simply put this Bruguera would be formidable opponent for any clay-courter in history, yes including Borg and Nadal who'd need to summon their 1978/80/81 and 2008/12/17 level to win.
Courier is a somewhat more questionable case as this one wasn't quite as dominant as his '92 self and I too think Sergi was a hair better regardless, but I still like his chances vs. the sans-Nadal Big 3. As @encylopedia once cautioned, and as this match makes clear in no uncertain terms, we shouldn't underestimate what an unshakable rock the four-time Slammer was in his heyday, and time would be on his side as Novak's mediocre topspin would ultimately give way to Jim's crushing groundies off both wings and Fed would be hard-pressed to duplicate his serving performance over the course of say 10 matches or even a sole win-or-go-home showdown. As a general, time-honored rule clay rewards consistency and patience more than anything else, hence Novak's decisive edge over Fed in GW%s (career, seasonal and RG) and Jim's higher peak over both though you may not think of it that way.
All in all, a criminally underappreciated classic between these two '90s titans, with a nail-biting seesaw of a 5th set to boot. If this is not the very greatest FO match ever, it can't be too far behind.
Now the addendums. To repeat my earlier observation, if the '91 FO final ushered in a new era of knock-'em-dead dirtballing this was its apex, with two clay-court greats giving their all for the entire duration of five brutal sets. In fact I'll go a step further than our (inactive) Bruguera cheerleader @!Tym: this was the very greatest contest at RG since 1968, if not the single greatest match in FO history period, and had either Bruguera or Courier been a marquee name this final would be included in just about every greatest-matches list.
I've discussed why in more detail but to wit, you rarely see this level of high-octane jousting between two heavyweights at their peak. Usually one of 'em is somewhat green or in subtle yet clear decline, but that's not the case here, with Sergi and Jim almost equaling their respective career-high GW% on clay - 63.3% in '94 and 64.5% in '92 or a sensational 66.1% in the CC season proper - with 62.2% and 63.8% for the '93 season. To put this in perspective, Kafelnikov, Moya, Costa and Wawrinka (plus Chang and Gaudio without rounding up) are among the FO champs who were never admitted to the exclusive 60% Club (excluding DC and de facto exo WTC), and even Ferrero and Federer did so just barely with less than 61.0% for the season ('01 and '05, if you care to know). And even the uber-reliable Novak has yet to match '93 (or '92 for that matter) Jim's seasonal average.
But it's not until you look at these two's GW%s for '93 RG that you realize what a clash of the titans this final was: 61.2% for Courier vs. a historic 68.8% for Bruguera who as Tym noted was wont to go thru the motions except for the biggie. Those %s are brought down drastically by the grueling 5-setter, but Jim still turned in a performance almost everyone else would be proud of while Sergi flirted with the rarefied 70% mark which he likely breaks without having to dispatch another fellow 60%er in Sampras (QF). In fact the only closest OE equivalent I know of is the '81 FO final, but while Borg predictably dominated the season with 66.7% and Lendl posted a damn impressive 62.4% (ATP-certified events only) in his own right a strained back hobbled Ivan at RG, hence his mediocre 53.2% for the event vs. Borg's sky-high 71.1%. Lendl did do much better at the '84 edition with 64.1% and Mac was no chopped liver himself with 61.2%, but even in his virtually matchless form Mac the net wizard would be hard-pressed to maintain it on clay for a full 5 sets vs. an ATG dirtballer, as we saw in that year's final where the percentages gradually shifted to Ivan.
Which brings us to my final point. Compare the above highlights with these from the much-ballyhooed '11 SF between Fed and Novak:
Now ask yourself, in all honesty, whether Bruguera and Courier yield an inch to these guys. If anything it's clear they hit heavier balls with more topspin, and with even more racquet head speed when called for. Also notice how both Sergi and Jim, the stereotyped baseline-hugging ball bashers, attacked the net more than either Fed or Novak despite the heavy onslaught from the other side. When I described the '93 final as "an all-out-war" I wasn't at all exaggerating. These two threw the proverbial kitchen sink at each other, and even when Jim lost his lead and then gave up another break in the 5th set he refused to wilt, as one can see in the ATG CP which Sergi fittingly took with a thread-the-needle pass after a furious baseline exchange.
That Bruguera beats either Fedovic in 4 sets tops. You might think Fed with a similar serving performance would present unsolvable problems for anyone not named Nadal, Borg or perhaps Kuerten, but compare the vids again and you'll see that Sergi was actually standing closer to the baseline than Novak on return. The Spaniard "dirtballer" was a much more aggressive returner than most fans think - check out the clip's very 1st point for a most dazzling example - which is one of the reasons why he had a good record vs. Sampras, and while even Pete didn't always equal/surpass Fed's serving that day on clay Sergi should still be able to get Fed's URS% down from 42% to at least a more manageable 35% like he did in his '96 2nd-rounder vs. Pete. (and this Sergi was coming back from an injury, though he did almost turn back the clock vs. an inspired Pistol). And he'd have a significant advantage off the ground vs. Fed and even Novak. Simply put this Bruguera would be formidable opponent for any clay-courter in history, yes including Borg and Nadal who'd need to summon their 1978/80/81 and 2008/12/17 level to win.
Courier is a somewhat more questionable case as this one wasn't quite as dominant as his '92 self and I too think Sergi was a hair better regardless, but I still like his chances vs. the sans-Nadal Big 3. As @encylopedia once cautioned, and as this match makes clear in no uncertain terms, we shouldn't underestimate what an unshakable rock the four-time Slammer was in his heyday, and time would be on his side as Novak's mediocre topspin would ultimately give way to Jim's crushing groundies off both wings and Fed would be hard-pressed to duplicate his serving performance over the course of say 10 matches or even a sole win-or-go-home showdown. As a general, time-honored rule clay rewards consistency and patience more than anything else, hence Novak's decisive edge over Fed in GW%s (career, seasonal and RG) and Jim's higher peak over both though you may not think of it that way.
All in all, a criminally underappreciated classic between these two '90s titans, with a nail-biting seesaw of a 5th set to boot. If this is not the very greatest FO match ever, it can't be too far behind.
Angrybirdstar
Professional
finished watching this match today and besides the obvious incredible quality, i was blown away by how good of a player Bruguera could be all around?? i'd seen the return stats and the talk about the forehand and those didn't disappoint, but it was the touch and especially the backhand that had me continually in awe. he changed direction and painted lines like it was nothing, curled passes around Jim, and continually locked him into his ad corner - if anything, it felt like Sergi was so good on his backhand it made him too casual about running around to his forehand. i liked Tym's comparison of Bruguera to Safin because of the mentality struggles but i feel like the "forehand as barometer" characteristic is another similarity from what little i've seen and heard.
I get cramps
Professional
Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, the semifinal of that 1993 edition of RG between Bruguera and Medvedev has never been uploaded on YouTube; I don't know why that incredible tennis display has not caught the attention of any great tennis match collector over the years. I don't know which forum members have copies of that match. I watched it the day they played, and SB did what he wanted with the Ukrainian; he had his way with him. It is impossible to find that match in the archives of Radio Televisión Española because of the indifference and the love of the audience for tennis news that is exhausted by pure present.
Sergi's last three matches at Roland Garros en route to his victory on Sunday featured not-to-be-missed tennis from start to finish. SB had to beat Pete, Andrei Medvedev & Courier back to back. Bruguera won the tournament on Sunday, but the Catalan won the exhibition on Friday, playing against a Medvedev who had defeated SB the three previous times they played -all of them on clay, and two of them that same spring-.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
What sticks in my mind is Courier, after swimming against the tide for so much of the match, managed to get a 2-0 lead in the fifth set with Bruguera looking physically spent, only for Bruguera to get a second wind and win 5 games in a row. Courier then netted a seemingly easy forehand winner on break point when Bruguera was serving for the title at 5-3, which would have gotten it back on serve.
Jose Higueras said that this loss really bothered Courier for some time.
Jose Higueras said that this loss really bothered Courier for some time.
Angrybirdstar
Professional
haven't inspected much for quality or completeness but seems like Voo de Mar found all 3 sets! bar Bruguera's 3 straight points to break Medvedev and win the match, anyway
Similar threads
