Courier's performance at the 1992 French the greatest ever French Open performance

[grafselesfan]

Does anyone else think Courier's performance at the 1992 French Open might have been the greatest ever at that event. Such an incredibly difficult draw and he dominated it completely, thrashing a number of high quality clay courters and opponents.

First round: Courier defeats Kroon 7-6, 6-4, 6-2
Second round: Courier defeats Thomas Muster 6-1, 6-4, 6-4
Third round: Courier defeats Alberto Mancini 6-4, 6-2, 6-0
Fourth round: Courier defeats Andrei Medvedev 6-1, 6-4, 6-2
Quarterfinals: Courier defeats Goran Ivanisevic 6-2, 6-1, 2-6, 7-5
Semifinals: Courier defeats Andre Agassi 6-3, 6-2, 6-2
Finals: Courier defeats Petr Korda 7-5, 6-2, 6-1

Look over that draw. Muster in the 2nd round!?!? Just insane but he smoked him. Mancini has won BOTH Monte Carlo and Rome in his career, he was an excellent clay courter, and Courier thrashed him in the 3rd round. Medvedev was one of the hottest up and comers in the game at the time, and of course would go on to multiple Masters titles and a near French Open title in the futue. Ivanisevic is a many time slam finalist who has played well on all surfaces in his career, including clay. Agassi thrashd Sampras the round before, had been in the finals the last 2 years, and would win Wimbledon a month later, so was in good form, Courier just mauled him though. The easiest opponents were probably the first round of course and the final (for final standards) but remember Korda did win a slam in the future. So with an incredible draw including potential French Open winners in 2 of the first 3 rounds Courier ran roughshed over everyone. Possibly the greatest French Open performance ever?

 

[grafselesfan]

Courier vs Muster highlights of the 92 French: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT9NNP3smNM&feature=related

Courier vs Ivanisevic highlights of the 02 French Open: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZZU...80F2AC8F6&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4

Courier vs Agassi highlights of the 92 French: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXBe7yNWNG0

Courier vs Korda highlight of the 92 French:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCeXFXwUAz0

 

[GameSampras]

Agreed. I would put Courier that year up against ANYONE on clay and like his chances. Lendl, Borg, Nadal you name it.. Courier was unreal


Though I do have my reservations of 95 Muster beating Courier though.. Im not sure if Ive ever seen the level of play produced that Muster produced in 95

 

[grafselesfan]

Agreed. I would put Courier that year up against ANYONE on clay and like his chances. Lendl, Borg, Nadal you name it.. Courier was unreal


Though I do have my reservations of 95 Muster beating Courier though.. Im not sure if Ive ever seen the level of play produced that Muster produced in 95

Muster of 1995 vs Courier of 1992 would be an amazing match on clay! On hard courts or grass Courier of 1991-1993 would slaughter any Muster of course but on clay the 1995 Muster vs the 1992 Courier would be incredible.

It is amazing the glaring lack of respect Courier gets on these boards. People comparing him to 1 slam wonder Roddick and some other chumps. As if Roddick would win 4 slams in the 90s, he would be lucky to match the 1 he has now.

 

[GameSampras]

Muster of 1995 vs Courier of 1992 would be an amazing match on clay! On hard courts or grass Courier of 1991-1993 would slaughter any Muster of course but on clay the 1995 Muster vs the 1992 Courier would be incredible.

It is amazing the glaring lack of respect Courier gets on these boards. People comparing him to 1 slam wonder Roddick and some other chumps. As if Roddick would win 4 slams in the 90s, he would be lucky to match the 1 he has now.

Oh definitely a french open matchup of Courier of 92 vs. Muster 95 would have been one for the ages.. I agree though, Muster wouldnt stand a chance against a peak Courier on other surfaces.

Courier is very underrated IMO due to his peak/prime not last long.. But when he was at his best, he truly was a great great player. If he had longevity, I shudder to think how his career might have ended up.


Its a shame american men's tennis has dropped so far since Courier, Andre, and Pete graced the courts.


Since then all we have had left to root for are guys like Blake, Roddick, Isner, and Young.. YIKES.


It sunk so low so fast. Once Pete and Andre, that was it for america. But obviously you arent going to produce an array of players like Pete, Andre, Courier every generation. Not on their level anyways

 

[grafselesfan]

Oh definitely a french open matchup of Courier of 92 vs. Muster 95 would have been one for the ages.. I agree though, Muster wouldnt stand a chance against a peak Courier on other surfaces.

Courier is very underrated IMO due to his peak/prime not last long.. But when he was at his best, he truly was a great great player. If he had longevity, I shudder to think how his career might have ended up

Yeah he did have a short prime/peak and burnt out quickly, but boy he was a darn tough player during that peak. Had prime Sampras and peak Bruguera on clay not come along in 93-94 he might have ended up with 8 or 9 majors even with a short pime. It is too bad he didnt last longer really. It would have been amazing to see prime Sampras, resurgent and fitter Agassi, a prime Courier, and even a still strong Becker, all battling it out on all surfaces.

People on this board seem to worship longevity. I respect it to a point. I certainly respect the longevity of say Chris Evert who won atleast 1 slam for 13 straight years, or the longevity of Steffi Graf winning atleast 1 slam for 10 straight years, or the longevity of Pete Sampras- winning atleast 1 slam for 9 straight years. However I dont see what is so great about being in the top 10 forever like Roddick and winning only 1 slam. So you spend all that time near the top and that is all you have to show for it, 1 lucky slam.

 

[GameSampras]

In some good knows for America.. Roddick's confidence seems to have carried over from Wimbeldon. He took out Isner today in Washington . He'll be in the finals vs. Del Potro the defending champ..

Of course, that momentum will prolly only last until the late stages of the USO (quarters, semis, or maybe finals depending on his draw) than he will be back to mediocrity and we wont hear from his again until Wimbeldon next year.


Not sure if youre american.. But I am SO SICK of not having a great player to follow behind and repesent my country. Its truly a shame. We are represented by HACKS these days

 

[GameSampras]

Oh I definitely agree about the longevity part. Longevity in the top 10 is something good to have on your resume. As it shows consistency.. But at the same time when you only have 1 slam to show for yourself for a decade, that shows me you werent good enough to get it done on the big stage. To me I look at that more as a 'era filling" not really accomplishing a great career for yourself.

True greats, prove themselves on the biggest stage.. Roddick never proved he could.

And even Roddick's solo slam was questionable due to the crazy calls in his match with Nalbandian.. Very questionable in deed. Roddick could very well be sitting on a big goose egg in the slam count

 

[grafselesfan]

Its a shame american men's tennis has dropped so far since Courier, Andre, and Pete graced the courts.


Since then all we have had left to root for are guys like Blake, Roddick, Isner, and Young.. YIKES.


It sunk so low so fast. Once Pete and Andre, that was it for america. But obviously you arent going to produce an array of players like Pete, Andre, Courier every generation. Not on their level anyways

It was just amazing when you had Sampras, Agassi, Courier, and Chang all there at once. I woud even give honorable mention to Todd Martin as a pretty good 5th man, one of the better players to never win a major. I feel for Chang in a way as he was the first of the big 4 to win a major and never won a 2nd but boy he played some incredibly good tennis in his pursuit of another. He lost to the eventual champion of the U.S Open so many times, really the next best hard court player after Borg to never win a hard court slam. Of course he was a tough little clay courter too and did win a French, and reached another final there. Courier was actually the first of that group to dominate, even though he obviously ended up less accomplished than Sampras and Agassi both those guys have a tremendous amount of respect for him and how good he was. I remember both telling the press when the were #1 and #2 and Courier was only #14 that they always played Courier as if he were still a top 5 player. Of course Agassi such a long career with some up and downs which he kept coming out of a victor at the end, and endured him all the more to the public. Sampras, well what can you say about him, the guy is just the king. There were so many great matches between those 4 I remember too.

Now it is a joke like you said. What a joke to hear the hype about Blake the now perennial #2 (on occasion even #1, eek) American. How sad we have to hear talk about the supposed potential of John Isner and Donald Young, and a few years back had to hear the press trying to build up Ginepri, Fish, and Dent. Ugh. You wouldnt have even heard of those guys 15 years ago, except Roddick who would be more like Todd Martin back then, a respected and solid player who probably couldnt quite breakthrough to win a slam vs the killer field (except much less of a gentleman than Todd of course). How I miss the good old days, especialy for America tennis.

 

[grafselesfan]

Oh I definitely agree about the longevity part. Longevity in the top 10 is something good to have on your resume. As it shows consistency.. But at the same time when you only have 1 slam to show for yourself for a decade, that shows me you werent good enough to get it done on the big stage. To me I look at that more as a 'era filling" not really accomplishing a great career for yourself.

True greats, prove themselves on the biggest stage.. Roddick never proved he could.

And even Roddick's solo slam was questionable due to the crazy calls in his match with Nalbandian.. Very questionable in deed. Roddick could very well be sitting on a big goose egg in the slam count

Yeah I agree with that. I respect it to a degree. It shows he mantained being a good solid player for a long time. However to be that high up in the game that long, and come through with only 1 slam (and a lucky one at that) really isnt a measure of true greatness IMO. I mean that long, that many chances, and that is all you have to show for it. Of course Roddick fans will hide behind Federer, but Roddick has lost to many more players than Federer. Anyway Federer as great as he is, isnt unbeatable. Nadal certainly has proven that. Nadal hasnt let the "Federer is too good" mantra weight him done, he has simply gone ahead and won slams anyway, if he had to beat Federer he did- which he has done for all 6 slams he won. The bottom line is you either get it done or you dont, and Roddick hasnt shown the ability to get it done on the biggest stages hardly ever.

You are right his U.S Open was suspect in some ways. So many things working against Nalbandian- the ridiculous schedule which was manipulated to cater for Roddick (with all the rain delays he was allowed to finish the next round when other guys hadnt finished a previous round in one of the rounds IIRC), and Nalbandian still was totally outplaying him and should have won in straights. Then that cheap fake OUT call by a fan which decided a huge point, a quesionable line call, that tiebreak where Roddick survived by the skin of his teeth was fortunate to say the least.

 

[CountryHillbilly]

Does anyone else think Courier's performance at the 1992 French Open might have been the greatest ever at that event. Such an incredibly difficult draw and he dominated it completely, thrashing a number of high quality clay courters and opponents.

First round: Courier defeats Kroon 7-6, 6-4, 6-2
Second round: Courier defeats Thomas Muster 6-1, 6-4, 6-4
Third round: Courier defeats Alberto Mancini 6-4, 6-2, 6-0
Fourth round: Courier defeats Andrei Medvedev 6-1, 6-4, 6-2
Quarterfinals: Courier defeats Goran Ivanisevic 6-2, 6-1, 2-6, 7-5
Semifinals: Courier defeats Andre Agassi 6-3, 6-2, 6-2
Finals: Courier defeats Petr Korda 7-5, 6-2, 6-1

He lost a set to Goran.

Thread failed.

 

[grafselesfan]

He lost a set to Goran.

Thread failed.

That was his off day of the tournament.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Nadal last yr for me. The way he destroyed guys like Almagro and Verdasco, reputable clay courters soundly, and of course the beatdown he gave Fed in the finals. To me that's easily the greatest FO performance, to go through

Niemenen-only lost 5 games.
Verdasco-only lost 3 games
Almagro-a guy that actually led the tour in CC wins going into the FO...triple breadstick
Djokovic-a guy most thought could take a set or two, beat him in straights
Federer-only lost 4 games, bageled him in the final set, most embarassing loss at a slam for one of the greatest of all time.

That's impressive, and IMO the greatest FO performance I've ever seen.

 

[grafselesfan]

Nadal last yr for me. The way he destroyed guys like Almagro and Verdasco, reputable clay courters soundly, and of course the beatdown he gave Fed in the finals. To me that's easily the greatest FO performance, to go through

Niemenen-only lost 5 games.
Verdasco-only lost 3 games
Almagro-a guy that actually led the tour in CC wins going into the FO...triple breadstick
Djokovic-a guy most thought could take a set or two, beat him in straights
Federer-only lost 4 games, bageled him in the final set, most embarassing loss at a slam for one of the greatest of all time.

That's impressive, and IMO the greatest FO performance I've ever seen.

I agree Nadal's 2008 French Open performance certainly is a candidate as well. However his draw was still nothing like Courier's in 92. Federer is the only one who compares to the guys in Courier's draw at the 92 French. Djokovic is a good clay courter but he isnt Agassi, Medvedev, Muster, or even Mancini on clay yet. Nieminen, Almagro, Verdasco are clowns compared to the likes of Medvedev, Mancini, or even Korda.

 

[GameSampras]

Nadal's performance last year was great.. But really the main threat had had last year was Djoker. (Fed proves as no threat at the French vs. nadal as history has shown). The first 3 guy: Verdasco, Niemenen, Alamegro.. I dunno... What type of careers have these guys really provided for themselves?

Verdasco can get hot and be on fire as we saw at the AO. But then totally sink into ground zero other times.. Very streaky.


Muster, Medvedev, and ANdre had their share of streakiness but at least they had some great results over their careers to show for themselves. Muster has an RG title, we know Andre's success, and Medvedev has quite a few clay master titles under his belt.. What have guys like Verdasco shown?

 

[grafselesfan]

Nadal's performance last year was great.. But really the main threat had had last year was Djoker. (Fed proves as no threat at the French vs. nadal as history has shown). The first 3 guy: Verdasco, Niemenen, Alamegro.. I dunno... What type of careers have these guys really provided for themselves?

Verdasco can get hot and be on fire as we saw at the AO. But then totally sink into ground zero other times.. Very streaky.


Muster, Andreev, and ANdre had their share of streakiness but at least they had some great results over their careers to show for themselves.. What have guys like Verdasco shown?

Except for this years Australian Open, Verdasco doesnt even show up to play Nadal either. I say that as a Nadal fan also. He grossly underperforms each time he steps on court with Nadal, even getting spanked and barely getting games vs a pre prime Nadal on hard courts back in 2005. Remember the two are close friends. I think many of Nadal's Spanish amigos underperform vs him, except for Moya who seems to be the other way around- Nadal has a hard time getting up for his young age mentor and big brother figure. Ferrero and Nadal arent close and Ferrero is able to step up and perform with more a chip on his shoulder and has a couple big wins over Nadal even past his prime.

Dont forget about Mancini who has won both Rome (beating Agassi in the final) and Monte Carlo in his career. To put it into perspective even Federer in a much weaker clay court field hasnt won either event. Imagine playing Muster and a Rome/Monte Carlo Champion in his career in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. You would never see that today, never. Instead today you see Ljubicic in the semis of the French, LOL!

 

[JeMar]

Yeah, Courier was awesome.

For two years.

 

[GameSampras]

Im sorry about the typo .. I met medvedev not Andreev...


We look at the results..

Medvedev- Many clay masters titles.. proved he could win some big tourneys on clay.

Andre- We know his career.. All around successful.

Muster- Streaky but a beast and proved he could win the French and due so in maybe the highest tennis level on clay ever played arguably of course.



Verdasco, Niemenen, Alamegro? Hmmmm.. Not much in terms of big career titles there.. None of which are very accomplished.



Im not sure how anyone could think that the 00's produced as many quality, solid clay courters as the 90s

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Niemenen I agree is a clown...lol.

But Almagro was a top 10 clay courter last yr...had the most CC wins last yr going into the FO, had 2 titles on clay...I'm not saying he had any shot to beat Nadal, but people I remember thought he'd at least challenge him...and Nadal totally destroyed him. Same w/ Verdasco and Federer.

Federer no threat at the FO? Fed had at least taken a set off of Nadal in every single one of their RG meetings before last yr. 6-1 in the 1st in 2006, anyone? But for Nadal to totally beat him down the way he did was shocking...after that performance, the thought was Nadal would go 3-4 yrs w/o losing a French. But then this yr....but that's another topic.

 

[grafselesfan]

Im sorry about the typo Grafrules .. I met medvedev not Andreev...


We look at the results..

Medvedev- Many clay masters titles.. proved he could win some big tourneys on clay.

Andre- We know his career.. All around successful.

Muster- Streaky but a beast and proved he could win the French and due so in maybe the highest tennis level on clay ever played arguably of course.



Verdasco, Niemenen, Alamegro? Hmmmm.. Not much in terms of big career titles there.. None of which are very accomplished.

I am actually not grafrules who is another poster, but I know who you meant when you said Andreev. Yeah I agree. Medvedev, Agassi, Muster are in another planet from Verdasco, Niemenen, Almagro on clay (well Agassi on everything else). Just compare their credentials, they say it all, and the Nadal excuse doesnt fly here as how many times have those three lost to Nadal (well Verdasco alot but he loses to a horde of other players too). As I said even Mancini who has Monte Carlo and Rome in his career is far superior a clay courter to those three.

 

[JeMar]

Im sorry about the typo .. I met medvedev not Andreev...


We look at the results..

Medvedev- Many clay masters titles.. proved he could win some big tourneys on clay.

Andre- We know his career.. All around successful.

Muster- Streaky but a beast and proved he could win the French and due so in maybe the highest tennis level on clay ever played arguably of course.



Verdasco, Niemenen, Alamegro? Hmmmm.. Not much in terms of big career titles there.. None of which are very accomplished.



Im not sure how anyone could think that the 00's produced as many quality, solid clay courters as the 90s

More parity comes from less dominant players.

Just look at the WTA.

Yes, the 90s were the ATP equivalent of today's WTA. Even Yevgeny "Where can I collect my check?" Kafelnikov made out with multiple slams.

 

[World Beater]

korda the king of topspin.

goran the versatile all court player

incredible opponents, i agree!

 

[Deleted member 25923]

When you guys are done tooting each other's horns, stop dissing Roddick.

 

[GameSampras]

Dang I always get you two confused. LOL..



But Im waiting for fed fans or some other fan to chime in saying, no one else was allowed to achieve much success due to Roger and Nadal taking it all.


There may be some truth to that as no doubt Nadal and Fed are all time greats.. But I do think there comes a point when some responsibility or blame has to be placed on the opposition for not stepping up to the plate and winning.

 

[GameSampras]

More parity comes from less dominant players.

Just look at the WTA.

Yes, the 90s were the ATP equivalent of today's WTA. Even Yevgeny "Where can I collect my check?" Kafelnikov made out with multiple slams.

Kafelnikov could play on clay. Another very underrated player around here..

 

[akv89]

I agree Nadal's 2008 French Open performance certainly is a candidate as well. However his draw was still nothing like Courier's in 92. Federer is the only one who compares to the guys in Courier's draw at the 92 French. Djokovic is a good clay courter but he isnt Agassi, Medvedev, Muster, or even Mancini on clay yet. Nieminen, Almagro, Verdasco are clowns compared to the likes of Medvedev, Mancini, or even Korda.

Nadal's draw in 08 was reasonably difficult, although not as difficult as Courier's. And Courier's draw, although quite difficult, isn't as gargantuan as you make it out to be either. The reason Nadal was more impressive in his run to the title was because of the extent of his domination. Nobody's won a major title that conclusively since Borg.

 

[grafselesfan]

More parity comes from less dominant players.

Just look at the WTA.

Yes, the 90s were the ATP equivalent of today's WTA. Even Yevgeny "Where can I collect my check?" Kafelnikov made out with multiple slams.

Kafelnikov had a Serena Williams like approach to tennis. He tanked many of the regular tour events. The only difference is he never had the major endorsements of Serena so he played tons of events and tons of singles and doubles to collect as much prize money cheques as possible, but only the slams did he really care about 100%. Many people have a misconception of his abilities since he did make himself look bad in some ways with things like never even winning a Masters title and his long losing streaks to inferior players like Thomas Johansson However when it came to the slams the guy was a tough player. He has wins over Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Krajicek, and Stich in slams. He took Kuerten to 5 sets twice and a really tough 4 setter the 3 years he won the French. Otherwise he probably wins 1 or 2 of those 3 in addition to the 1 he already has. He played amazing tennis at the 97 year end Championships, thashing World #2 Chang and many other top ranked players before falling to a red hot Sampras in the final. In Australia he won the title then was runner up the next year. The guy could play some serious tennis on all surfaces except for grass where I admit he was mediocre. He just only really showed it in the big events.

 

[JeMar]

Dang I always get you two confused. LOL..



But Im waiting for fed fans or some other fan to chime in saying, no one else was allowed to achieve much success due to Roger and Nadal taking it all.


There may be some truth to that as no doubt Nadal and Fed are all time greats.. But I do think there comes a point when some responsibility or blame is placed on the opposition for not stepping up to the plate and winning.

I wouldn't have to come in here to tell you you're wrong if you allowed for the possibility that Pete and the other "clay court giants" of the 90s just weren't that good on the stuff. Again, less dominant players will allow their opponents to achieve more, thereby making their resumes look better. It's really not that difficult of a concept to understand.

 

[akv89]

Dang I always get you two confused. LOL..



But Im waiting for fed fans or some other fan to chime in saying, no one else was allowed to achieve much success due to Roger and Nadal taking it all.


There may be some truth to that as no doubt Nadal and Fed are all time greats.. But I do think there comes a point when some responsibility or blame has to be placed on the opposition for not stepping up to the plate and winning.

It's hard to do when Roger and Nadal are taking it all

 

[grafselesfan]

korda the king of topspin.

goran the versatile all court player

incredible opponents, i agree!

What a surprise that the queen Federer cheerleader showed up in this thread. Heaven forbid anyone be allowed to praise a non Federer contemporary without you showing up. Yes Goran and Korda are not legendary clay courters but keep in mind these were only the FIFTH and SIXTH toughest opponents of Courier's draw. So compare them to the fifth and sixth toughest opponents of a Nadal or Federer French Open draw, then we can talk.

 

[GameSampras]

What a surprise that the queen Federer cheerleader showed up in this thread. Heaven forbid anyone be allowed to praise a non Federer contemporary without you showing up. Yes Goran and Korda are not legendary clay courters but keep in mind these were only the FIFTH and SIXTH toughest opponents of Courier's draw. So compare them to the fifth and sixth toughest opponents of a Nadal or Federer French Open draw, then we can talk.

Like the dreaded Hanescu, almost 30 yr old Moya, Hartfiled, Falla, Massu, Berdych, Ancic(twice), ), Russell, Ascione, Starace, Youzhny, Robredo, Davydenko, Querry, Montanes, Benneteau and Monfils and all of the rest of Roger's main RG conquests. LOL


Certainly looks like a regular king arthur round table of losers to me

 

[grafselesfan]

Again, less dominant players will allow their opponents to achieve more, thereby making their resumes look better. It's really not that difficult of a concept to understand.

Yes I agree entirely. Like how less dominant clay court players like Federer himself, Djokovic, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Robredo and whover ever constitutes a top clay courter today allow Nadal to achieve more on the surface, thereby making his resume look better. Even moreso how less dominant fast court players like Roddick, Hewitt, pre-2008 Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Nalbandian allow Federer to achieve more, thereby making his resume look better. Not that difficult a concept to understand at all, for once we are in complete agreement.

 

[JeMar]

Kafelnikov had a Serena Williams like approach to tennis. He tanked many of the regular tour events. The only difference is he never had the major endorsements of Serena so he played tons of events and tons of singles and doubles to collect as much prize money cheques as possible, but only the slams did he really care about 100%. Many people have a misconception of his abilities since he did make himself look bad in some ways with things like never even winning a Masters title and his long losing streaks to inferior players like Thomas Johansson However when it came to the slams the guy was a tough player. He has wins over Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Krajicek, and Stich in slams. He took Kuerten to 5 sets twice and a really tough 4 setter the 3 years he won the French. Otherwise he probably wins 1 or 2 of those 3 in addition to the 1 he already has. He played amazing tennis at the 97 year end Championships, thashing World #2 Chang and many other top ranked players before falling to a red hot Sampras in the final. In Australia he won the title then was runner up the next year. The guy could play some serious tennis on all surfaces except for grass where I admit he was mediocre. He just only really showed it in the big events.

The point is that there's several slam winners in the 90s that will go down in the history books as "solid" players. Players like Kafelnikov are a great example of that type of player. Good all-around, but not that great. The only reason that they look like they were great is because they won a major (or two). What I'm saying is that some people here place too much of a correlation between 1-2 slams and greatness.

Pete was vulnerable to upsets outside of Wimbledon, Andre was physically or mentally absent for a substantial portion of the 90s, the 80s hold-overs were getting ready to retire, etc. Nadal and Federer take a lot of flak from people on these boards for winning so much and making the field look bad; I just don't think it's fair to hold their dominance (or Pete's lack of dominance) against the modern field.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

If we're talking about greatest performance....the only answer is Nadal. Nadal would have beaten all of Courier's opposition in straights in his 2008 form...I don't think you could say the same for Courier in his 1992 form against Fed and Djokovic. Don't just look at draw, think back to how dominant Nadal was, how invincible he seemed,...I don't see how the Courier performance can be better than Nadal's, simply for the fact that Nadal is a better clay courter than Courier.

 

[grafselesfan]

Like the dreaded Hanescu,almost 30 yr old Moya, Hartfiled, Falla, Massu, Berdych, Ancic(twice), ), Russell, Ascione, Starace, Youzhny, Robredo, Davydenko, Querry, Montanes, Benneteau and Monfils and all of the rest of Roger's main RG conquests. LOL

Haha thanks for posting that. Even the blind should be able to see what a joke the clay court field today is reading that. Heck if I had been in a coma for 6 years and read that I would assume you were posting Federer's first week (first 3 rounds) draws of the Frenh Opens the last 6 years or so. I would have never imagined that was all he had to beat to make 4 finals in a row and win this years French. Muster and Mancini are better than all of those players and they were just in Courier's first 3 rounds in only ONE draw.

 

[GameSampras]

Haha thanks for posting that. Even the blind should be able to see what a joke the clay court field today is reading that. Heck if I had been in a coma for 6 years and read that I would assume you were posting Federer's first week (first 3 rounds) draws of the Frenh Opens the last 6 years or so. I would have never imagined that was all he had to beat to make 4 finals in a row and win this years French. Muster and Mancini are better than all of those players and they were just in Courier's first 3 rounds in only ONE draw.

And People wonder I actually would give Sampras a chance in grabbing a French Open title somewhere between 02-04. Look at some of the field around that time. Sampras went out to far greater clay courters during that time.. Bruguera, Courier, and Andre.

 

[grafselesfan]

If we're talking about greatest performance....the only answer is Nadal. Nadal would have beaten all of Courier's opposition in straights in his 2008 form...I don't think you could say the same for Courier in his 1992 form against Fed and Djokovic. Don't just look at draw, think back to how dominant Nadal was, how invincible he seemed,...I don't see how the Courier performance can be better than Nadal's, simply for the fact that Nadal is a better clay courter than Courier.

First of all I never implied Courier deserves to rank ahead of Nadal on clay. Nadal with his longevity and dominance over almost 5 years (even vs a crummy clay court field) is clearly ahead on the all time greatest clay courters list. Nowhere did I imply he wasnt. All I said was Courier's performance at the 92 French is IMO one of the greatest in history, considering the way he simply demolished a sick draw I would put his performance up there vs anyones in French Open history. That is all.

As for Courier in his 1992 form yes I think he could have easily gone through the 2008 draw in straight sets all things considered. He went through a much tougher draw in 92 losing only 1 set after all. You seem to forget Federer was playing horrible tennis at the 2008 French, the worst tennis he had played in a slam since 2002 probably (and I am far from a Federer fan). The fact he made the final at all playing that badly is testement to the field, of course even a 40% Federer can scrape past a clown like Monfils. Federer of 2005-2007 at the French might take sets from Courier 92, but not Federer of the 2008 French. Djokovic isnt some amazing clay courter. What has he proven so far, 1 win over Federer on clay in a bunch of tries, 0-3 or 0-4 vs David Ferrer on clay (LOL), 0-6 vs Nadal (even Fed has a couple wins atleast), 1 Masters title, and his biggest wins at the French are Gonzo and Mathieu. Courier of 92 absolutely would smack down Djokovic in 3 sets on clay. Djokovic would probably lose 9 of the first 11 games then retire with some "injury" or exhaustion

I also wouldnt be so sure at all Nadal of even 2008 goes through the 1992 draw in straight sets. Mancini, Muster, Medvedev, and Agassi all were in good form all might have a shot to take a set, or atleast make a closer score than they did with Courier. I have no doubt Nadal of 2008 would win the 1992 French if you replace Courier with him, but I wouldnt gaurantee him doing it as easily as Courier did.

 

[JeMar]

Yes I agree entirely. Like how less dominant clay court players like Federer himself, Djokovic, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Robredo and whover ever constitutes a top clay courter today allow Nadal to achieve more on the surface, thereby making his resume look better. Even moreso how less dominant fast court players like Roddick, Hewitt, pre-2008 Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Nalbandian allow Federer to achieve more, thereby making his resume look better. Not that difficult a concept to understand at all, for once we are in complete agreement.

And hey, that's fine. That's your opinion. I'm just tired of the gag reflex reaction of some of Sampras' acolytes whenever anyone mentions anything from the 90s.

I agree that some of the 90s players were more mentally strong than today's generation, but if you watch an average match from today and compare it to an average match from the 90s, you'll find that the game is played at a much higher level. Just about every tennis journalist these days claims that the level of the game is the best its ever been, mental issues aside.

I could argue that the lack of mental fortitude in some players comes from conditioned defeatist attitudes due to Federer and Nadal's dominance, though.

 

[JeMar]

And People wonder I actually would give Sampras a chance in grabbing a French Open title somewhere between 02-04. Look at some of the field around that time. Sampras went out to far greater clay courters during that time.. Bruguera, Courier, and Andre.

And he could also lose to much worse players than those three, lol.

Again, if you can't beat Galo Blanco and Santoro, you can't win a French Open.

 

[GameSampras]

And he could also lose to much worse players than those three, lol.

Again, if you can't beat Galo Blanco and Santoro, you can't win a French Open.

Not during that time at the French though. This is when Sampras at his best and firing on all cylinders on clay. Sampras made deeps runs and would eventually fall prey to Andre, Courier, and Bruguera around 92-94.. Take these 3 out and Sampras sees a much bigger window of opportunity 02-04

 

[GameSampras]

And hey, that's fine. That's your opinion. I'm just tired of the gag reflex reaction of some of Sampras' acolytes whenever anyone mentions anything from the 90s.

I agree that some of the 90s players were more mentally strong than today's generation, but if you watch an average match from today and compare it to an average match from the 90s, you'll find that the game is played at a much higher level. Just about every tennis journalist these days claims that the level of the game is the best its ever been, mental issues aside.

I could argue that the lack of mental fortitude in some players comes from conditioned defeatist attitudes due to Federer and Nadal's dominance, though.

You summed up the 00's field with those simple 3 words .

 

[JeMar]

Not during that time at the French though. This is when Sampras at his best and firing on all cylinders on clay. Sampras made deeps runs and would eventually fall prey to Andre, Courier, and Bruguera around 92-94.. Take these 3 out and Sampras sees a much bigger window of opportunity 02-04

Are you talking about 1992-1994 OR 2002-2004???

 

[JeMar]

You summed up the 00's field with those simple 2 words .

Yeah, shame that Sampras didn't have the game to do that to his opponents.

The sword cuts both ways.

Oh, and bold the whole sentence, not just the words that you like.

 

[GameSampras]

Are you talking about 1992-1994 OR 2002-2004???

Im saying if we put Sampras circa 92-94 into the 02-04 French Open draws. We take out Andre, Bruguera, and Courier.. Its no doubt Sampras sees a bigger window of opportunity open to grab a french.

 

[grafselesfan]

And People wonder I actually would give Sampras a chance in grabbing a French Open title somewhere between 02-04. Look at some of the field around that time. Sampras went out to far greater clay courters during that time.. Bruguera, Courier, and Andre.

Yeah I totally agree. I dont think he would have beaten Ferrero in 2003 (although you never know since Sampras is an amazing big match player and Ferrero is 1-2 in slam finals all winnable matches so obviously is not), but 2002 and 2004 would be definite possabilities. 2004 would be the biggest of all, in fact I would be very surprised if you put Sampras of 1994 there if he didnt win it. If a time machine could be invented I would put some money down on that year. Who would he have to beat- the ridiculously overrated Coria who fell apart and gave away a title that should have been gift wrapped for him in that years worst ever clay court field, Gaudio who I think has no other quarters of the French and no Masters finals on clay, Nalbandian the slam semifinal choker who is mostly a hard court/indoors specialist anyway, Henman in the semis on clay, LOL!

People harp on many of Sampras's bad showings at the French or on clay in general but forget his prime on clay was 1992-1996, and during that time he had only one bad loss at the French. As for the other tournaments, Pete knew he wasnt cut out for the month to month grind of clay court tennis, he focused on the French and except for 1 time performed very well there in his prime, just losing to great clay courters and taking out several of them as well. Even so outside the French he won Rome, the second biggest clay court title, and a title Federer has yet to win, along with single handedly winning that Davis Cup final for the U.S on clay, again another title Federer has yet to attain.

 

[JeMar]

Im saying if we put Sampras circa 92-94 into the 02-04 French Open draws. We take out Andre, Bruguera, and Courier.. Its no doubt Sampras sees a bigger window of opportunity open to grab a french.

Oh, can I borrow your time machine? I have some investments I'd like to make.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

The name 'Sampras' should not be brought up in a thread discussing the greatest FO performances ever...I'm sorry, that's just principle.

And big surprise how this shifts to a thread to bash this era once again...:roll:

Really guys, I didn't bash any of Couriers opponents, why feel the need to dismantle others arguments?

Using the eye test, not just rankings and whatever you 90s-****s use...Nadal last yr was the greatest I've ever seen. To say schooling Federer isn't impressive...only fooling yourselves.

 

[JeMar]

Im saying if we put Sampras circa 92-94 into the 02-04 French Open draws. We take out Andre, Bruguera, and Courier.. Its no doubt Sampras sees a bigger window of opportunity open to grab a french.

I would also like to see 2004-2006 Federer play Costa for the RG title in 2002.

 

[grafselesfan]

To say schooling Federer isn't impressive...only fooling yourselves.

To not recognize Federer was playing some of his most ever sh1t tennis at the 2008 French, and only made the final due to the joke clay court field and draws of today is to be really fooling yourself. I am a way bigger Nadal fan (one of my favorite players) than a Federer fan (I cant stand the guy as you well know anyway) so why on earth would I make that up if it werent true anyway. It is the truth. It was such a joke to see Federer play as badly as he did at last years French and still somehow scrape into the final due to the non existence of quality clay courter after Nadal, Federer, and to a lesser extent Djokovic (who was in Nadal's half as usual of course). Sad to see that even a really bad Federer on his worst surface by far is better than everyone else on it except Nadal and sometimes Djokovic.

 

[grafselesfan]

I would also like to see 2004-2006 Federer play Costa for the RG title in 2002.

Federer lost to a clearly past his prime Costa when they played on clay in Rome in 2004.