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

[GameSampras]

Fed's advantage comes from the fact he gew up on clay, which obviously helps. Then there is style of play, Roger is point construction, while Pete is moreso point destruction. The clay blunts both of them as they are both shotmakers who fair better on quicker surfaces, but the clay blunts Sampras more. Federer uses spin while Sampras hits flat, and the clay accentuates the spin more.

Sampras on any given can likely beat anyone on clay and he's shown that. Look at the 1995 Davis Cup on an extremely slow clay, which became much slower when the Russians watered it down (to beat Germany and play the USA) and were even fined for doing so. Of 7 matches, or over a course of tournaments is where the style of play favours Roger. His style will hold up and is more adept than Sampras. Using an eastern grip small frame and hitting much more flatter than many who hit with spin(since Borg approx.) will no fair well unless you transplant him to the 1960's when everyone was doing that.

I've always said that the gap between the 2 is not as big as many like to portay it to be.
FRENCH OPEN
-1992 QF Agassi (Dre was in and favoured in the previous 2 French finals)
-1993 QF Bruguera (won the title that year, won 19 straight at RG, and ended Courier's 20 match win streak at RG)
-1994 QF Courier (this victory by JC made him 24-1 in his last 25 at RG only losing to Bruguera)
-1996 SF Kafelnivkov (beat Bruguera and Courier, Kafelnikov won the title and was in SF in 1995 beating Agassi in QF and losing to Muster and his 40 straight on clay in SF)

The only bad loss was 1995, which was 5 sets over 2 days. he won Rome, made the SF of Rome and Hambrug(twice) and QF of Rome. In 1997 Sampras came to RG with a plan to get through early rds ASAP, as he was gassed in SF in 1996 after 5 setters with Bruguera, Martin and Courier. He would have made a dep run as he went through 1st 2 rds with out incident, but fell ill with some kind of stomach virus before 3rd rd and lost. Maybe he would have won it, maybe not, but he was primed to make another deep run QF, SF or so.

After that it became sort of a phobia or Pete didn't care. Cause he didn't much after 1997. 1999 is also blown out of proportion. People talk about depth. Sampras lost to Medvedev in the 2nd rd. Medvedev won Monte carlo and Hamburg(3 times). 4 times(Courier 1992, Bruguera 1993, Muster 1995, Kuerten 1997) all beat him en route to RG titles. And after beating Sampras in 1999, Medvedev then beat Kuerten and was up 2 sets to love on Agassi in the final. The guy could play on clay.

 

[JeMar]

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

2005-2006 Federer then?

I'm just playing.

I'm 75% sure GameSampras doesn't have a time machine!

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

9 of 13 yrs, Pete Sampras lost in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rounds of the FO (69% of the time)

8 of 13 yrs he lost in the 1st or 2nd rounds (62%)

He lost in the 1st round as many times as he made the QF, lost in the 2nd round more times than he made a QF or SF combined...yet this is all due to the strength of field? :roll:

 

[grafselesfan]

Fed's advantage comes from the fact he gew up on clay, which obviously helps. Then there is style of play, Roger is point construction, while Pete is moreso point destruction. The clay blunts both of them as they are both shotmakers who fair better on quicker surfaces, but the clay blunts Sampras more. Federer uses spin while Sampras hits flat, and the clay accentuates the spin more.

Sampras on any given can likely beat anyone on clay and he's shown that. Look at the 1995 Davis Cup on an extremely slow clay, which became much slower when the Russians watered it down (to beat Germany and play the USA) and were even fined for doing so. Of 7 matches, or over a course of tournaments is where the style of play favours Roger. His style will hold up and is more adept than Sampras. Using an eastern grip small frame and hitting much more flatter than many who hit with spin(since Borg approx.) will no fair well unless you transplant him to the 1960's when everyone was doing that.

I've always said that the gap between the 2 is not as big as many like to portay it to be.
FRENCH OPEN
-1992 QF Agassi (Dre was in and favoured in the previous 2 French finals)
-1993 QF Bruguera (won the title that year, won 19 straight at RG, and ended Courier's 20 match win streak at RG)
-1994 QF Courier (this victory by JC made him 24-1 in his last 25 at RG only losing to Bruguera)
-1996 SF Kafelnivkov (beat Bruguera and Courier, Kafelnikov won the title and was in SF in 1995 beating Agassi in QF and losing to Muster and his 40 straight on clay in SF)

The only bad loss was 1995, which was 5 sets over 2 days. he won Rome, made the SF of Rome and Hambrug(twice) and QF of Rome. In 1997 Sampras came to RG with a plan to get through early rds ASAP, as he was gassed in SF in 1996 after 5 setters with Bruguera, Martin and Courier. He would have made a dep run as he went through 1st 2 rds with out incident, but fell ill with some kind of stomach virus before 3rd rd and lost. Maybe he would have won it, maybe not, but he was primed to make another deep run QF, SF or so.

After that it became sort of a phobia or Pete didn't care. Cuz he didn't much after 1997. 1999 is also blown out of proportion. People talk about depth. Sampras lost to Medvedev in the 2nd rd. Medvedev won Monte carlo and Hamburg(3 times). 4 times(Courier 1992, Bruguera 1993, Muster 1995, Kuerten 1997) all beat him en route to RG titles. And after beating Sampras in 1999, Medvedev then beat Kuerten and was up 2 sets to love on Agassi in the final. The guy could play on clay.

Excellent breakdown. Your memory of that time period is great. You really documented well the strength of the 90s clay courts field, hence why I am so highly praising such dominant run as Courier's in 92, as that was almost unheard of in the 90s with the depth of the clay court fields.

The gap between Sampras and Federer on clay is indeed exagerrated. Federer is superior on clay but not by nearly the extent as their results. Federer gets a free ride to the French Open final every year, and with Nadal ever out like this year pretty much a free ride to the title. Heck he had a free ride to the title in the joke 2004 field and still blew it by losing to a hip cripped 90s holdover.

Put Sampras of 1992-1994 in the 2002-2004 clay court field and see what happens. Heck even 1997 to 1999 he probably could do better looking at the French looking at what is around now.

Put Federer of 2005-2009 vs the 1995-1999 fields and see if he is still making every big clay court final.

 

[Datacipher]

korda the king of topspin.

goran the versatile all court player

incredible opponents, i agree!

Uh....Korda was the OPPOSITE of topspin. Korda was one of the MOST powerful fastball hitters tennis has ever seen. He hit moderate topspin for rallies and then opened up with ridiculous, wild drives. He still may have the FASTEST forehand and backhand of all time.

Yes, on Goran I agree, the most devasting 1st serve tennis has ever seen, but his versatility gets very overlooked.

Another player that should be not overlooked is Mancini. Very short career aside, he DESTROYED tennis balls. Becker after getting hit by a Mancini backhand said that he felt like he'd been shot and that no other player hits the ball as hard, not "even Lendl". Tiriac also mentioned that Mancini hits the ball harder than the young, wild, Agassi. One of the absolute greatest topspin backhands of all time, and a forehand to match.

 

[grafselesfan]

Uh....Korda was the OPPOSITE of topspin. Korda was one of the MOST powerful fastball hitters tennis has ever seen. He hit moderate topspin for rallies and then opened up with ridiculous, wild drives. He still may have the FASTEST forehand and backhand of all time.

Yes, on Goran I agree, the most devasting 1st serve tennis has ever seen, but his versatility gets very overlooked.

Another player that should be not overlooked is Mancini. Very short career aside, he DESTROYED tennis balls. Becker after getting hit by a Mancini backhand said that he felt like he'd been shot and that no other player hits the ball as hard, not "even Lendl". Tiriac also mentioned that Mancini hits the ball harder than the young, wild, Agassi. One of the absolute greatest topspin backhands of all time, and a forehand to match.

I agree with everything you said on those 3 particular players. Many TW posters who are belittling those three have probably never even seen them play (especialy Mancini and Korda).

 

[zagor]

@OP I agree,one of the best FO performances ever,his draw was brutal that year and yet he passed with flying colours.Funny that Courier destroyed so many claycourt specialists that year but Goran who's supposedly "just a serve" gave him some trouble,people forget that Goran while at his best on grass and carpet still reached 3 FO QFs,not too shabby.

I also agree that Courier is underrated as a player in general.

Uh....Korda was the OPPOSITE of topspin. Korda was one of the MOST powerful fastball hitters tennis has ever seen. He hit moderate topspin for rallies and then opened up with ridiculous, wild drives. He still may have the FASTEST forehand and backhand of all time.

Yes, on Goran I agree, the most devasting 1st serve tennis has ever seen, but his versatility gets very overlooked.

Another player that should be not overlooked is Mancini. Very short career aside, he DESTROYED tennis balls. Becker after getting hit by a Mancini backhand said that he felt like he'd been shot and that no other player hits the ball as hard, not "even Lendl". Tiriac also mentioned that Mancini hits the ball harder than the young, wild, Agassi. One of the absolute greatest topspin backhands of all time, and a forehand to match.

He was being sarcastic.Anyone who ever saw Korda play knows he hit flat,always loved to watch him when he's on.Had some great matches with Pete in the 90s(even at Wimbledon he managed to give him a good battle).

 

[grafrules]

The French Open that year was marked by pure brilliance from Courier, a coming out party for the talented Korda, an emotional final attempt of a title run by the super taleted LeConte which ended in tears for him and the crowd by a brilliant Korda in the semis. Also great performances by Agassi, Ivanisevic, and Sampras against the odds, Agassi having a horrible year up until then and Ivanisevic and Sampras fast courters impressing on the red stuff.

On the womens side also brilliant. An amazing final between Graf and Seles, an amazing semifinal between Sabatini and Seles. A pretty good semifinal between Graf and Sanchez Vicario. An amazing performance by the unknown Kijimuta (spelling) who nearly took out Seles in the 4th round. Amazing quarterfinals where Zvereva nearly took out Graf 4 years after her finals humiliation, and Martinez and Sabatini, 2 of the greatest clay courters to never win the French, slugged it out over 3 tough sets.

 

[FedFan_2009]

I think that Courier maxed out on his talent with 4 slams and numerous other Masters and 250/500 titles. His playing style lent to an early burnout and that's why his peak was only 2.5 years.

 

[Datacipher]

He was being sarcastic.Anyone who ever saw Korda play knows he hit flat,always loved to watch him when he's on.Had some great matches with Pete in the 90s(even at Wimbledon he managed to give him a good battle).

Yes. I figured he was, but of course, it's idiotic to belittle Korda for NOT using a lot of topspin, it was his ridiculously fast, deep drives that MADE him so dangerous. Amazing shotmaker. I'll never forget the night he made an amazing USO impact by rocking Andre Agassi in a nightmatch with forehand and backhand flat blasts out of nowhere. Agassi only stole the limelight back from him when he (out of frustration), got into a tiff with the ump that SHOULD have left him defaulted. Had Korda not fallen and hurt himself later in the match, he might have swung Agassi out anyways. (though people who saw the US Davis Cup tie, ALREADY knew about Korda)

Further, he made his post even more ridiculous, by implying Goran was NOT versatile. What a way to show you are spouting off about things you know NOTHING about. Goran made the QF or better of every slam. Won, multiple titles ON EVERY SURFACE, indoors, hard, clay, grass. The guy was a super dangerous on EVERYTHING.

PS. An interesting team to me was Ivanisevic and Korda. I first heard they were teaming in 1990. They actually made the FO doubles final. What a SCARY team that would be to face.

 

[Datacipher]

The French Open that year was marked by pure brilliance from Courier, a coming out party for the talented Korda, an emotional final attempt of a title run by the super taleted LeConte which ended in tears for him and the crowd by a brilliant Korda in the semis. Also great performances by Agassi, Ivanisevic, and Sampras against the odds, Agassi having a horrible year up until then and Ivanisevic and Sampras fast courters impressing on the red stuff.
.

Agassi was trying to have a good FO, and really, was playing very well. Seem to recall him handling the solid Emilio Sanchez quite handily. What was amazing was how anti-climatic the showdown with Courier was. After their last few battles at the FO, this one was totally controlled by Courier. Mcenroe asked Agassi after, what he had tried, he said that thought he had noticed Agassi trying more topsin, flat balls, and other strategies, and Agassi admitted he threw everything at Courier but just couldn't get him off his game.

And of course, just a few weeks later, Agassi would get his first slam.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Great performance from Courier, still some people on here think Roddick is better than him.

 

[World Beater]

grafselesfan and gamesampras rubbing each other..how cute!

 

[World Beater]

Uh....Korda was the OPPOSITE of topspin. Korda was one of the MOST powerful fastball hitters tennis has ever seen. He hit moderate topspin for rallies and then opened up with ridiculous, wild drives. He still may have the FASTEST forehand and backhand of all time.

Yes, on Goran I agree, the most devasting 1st serve tennis has ever seen, but his versatility gets very overlooked.

Another player that should be not overlooked is Mancini. Very short career aside, he DESTROYED tennis balls. Becker after getting hit by a Mancini backhand said that he felt like he'd been shot and that no other player hits the ball as hard, not "even Lendl". Tiriac also mentioned that Mancini hits the ball harder than the young, wild, Agassi. One of the absolute greatest topspin backhands of all time, and a forehand to match.

LOL. you obviously didnt get it.

 

[World Beater]

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.

no...the surprise is you hyping korda and ivanisevic to the sky.. LOL.

great run for courier. but those two aren't the reasons for it.

funny how the 5th and 6th toughest opponents also happen to occur in the FINALS and QUARTERFINALS. Really, now! the easy opponents are supposed to be in the first week, not the second week.

next time try harder.

 

[Andy G]

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?

Best FO performance ever??
Steffi Graf 1988

R1 def Guerree-Spitzer 6-0 6-4
R2 def Reis 6-1 6-0
R3 def Sloane 6-0 6-1
R4 def Tauziat 6-1 6-3
QF def Fulco 6-0 6-1
SF def Sabatini 6-3 7-6
F def Zverera 6-0 6-0

yes double bagel in the final

look at all those 6-0 & 6-1 games. But, let me guess, its the WTA so for some reason it doesn't count. In 1988 I don't think any of the men could beat her.

 

[grafselesfan]

no...the surprise is you hyping korda and ivanisevic to the sky.. LOL.

great run for courier. but those two aren't the reasons for it.

funny how the 5th and 6th toughest opponents also happen to occur in the FINALS and QUARTERFINALS. Really, now! the easy opponents are supposed to be in the first week, not the second week.

next time try harder.

If you actually knew anything about tennis and watched your first tennis before your 2007 you would realize that the French Open seed by rankings, not surface ability. Back in the days mens tennis actually had competition and depth there was such a thing as "specialists". Specialists of all kind- clay court specialists, grass court specialists, indoor specialists, hard courters, and all arounders who played well on all surfaces too. Players like Mancini and Muster often did not perform well on non clay surfaces (although Muster also sometimes did perform well on non clay surfaces) thus their seedings (if they even were seeded) would not be reflective of their clay court abilities. Players like Ivanisevic and Korda who performed well on all surfaces would get a pretty good seeding as a result, as they would be ranked highly based on their ability to perform on all surfaces.

Your insinuation is that the final round opponent is always the toughest. By your logic I guess Kuznetsova was the toughest opponent for Henin at the 2007 French, not Venus and Serena the rounds before. Next time think before you speak, try even making it a habit. It would do wonders for you.

 

[grafselesfan]

Best FO performance ever??
Steffi Graf 1988

R1 def Guerree-Spitzer 6-0 6-4
R2 def Reis 6-1 6-0
R3 def Sloane 6-0 6-1
R4 def Tauziat 6-1 6-3
QF def Fulco 6-0 6-1
SF def Sabatini 6-3 7-6
F def Zverera 6-0 6-0

yes double bagel in the final

look at all those 6-0 & 6-1 games. But, let me guess, its the WTA so for some reason it doesn't count. In 1988 I don't think any of the men could beat her.

Graf is my all time favorite player, male or female, but yes you cannot compare mens and womens tennis really. Also while Graf was absolutely brilliant that isnt exactly the toughest ever draw for a women either (though it was still tougher than any draw at this years womens French Open).

 

[World Beater]

If you actually knew anything about tennis and watched your first tennis before your 2007 you would realize that the French Open seed by rankings, not surface ability. Back in the days mens tennis actually had competition and depth there was such a thing as "specialists". Specialists of all kind- clay court specialists, grass court specialists, indoor specialists, hard courters, and all arounders who played well on all surfaces too. Players like Mancini and Muster often did not perform well on non clay surfaces (although Muster also sometimes did perform well on non clay surfaces) thus their seedings (if they even were seeded) would not be reflective of their clay court abilities.
.

oh right. the specialists, competition, depth argument. havent heard that one before...

muster won Monte Carlo and Florence that season and basically flunked every other MAJOR clay tournament before RG. would you like me to cite all his clay losses? that was not exactly a muster in clay prime form - he was not even ranked in the top 20.


here you go...

muster lost to that season:

R32 Vaclav Roubicek (CZE) N/A W 6-2, 6-4

R32 Renzo Furlan (ITA) N/A L 7-6(2), 3-6, 4-6

R16 Ivan Lendl (USA) 9 L 3-6, 4-6

R32 Lars Jonsson (SWE) 102 L 5-7, 4-6

R32 Paul Haarhuis (NED) 35 L 7-5, 3-6, 6-7(1)

R64 Jim Courier (USA) 1 L 6-7(1), 4-6

R64 Jim Courier (USA) 1 L 1-6, 4-6, 4-6

R32 Fabrice Santoro (FRA) 57 L 4-6, 1-6

R16 Emilio Sanchez (ESP) 19 L 5-7, 0-6

S Andrei Medvedev (UKR) 100 L 2-6, 2-6

S Alberto Mancini (ARG) 38 L 6-7(1), 1-6

R64 Henri Leconte (FRA) 96 L 6-7, 6-7, 4-6

Q Bernd Karbacher (GER) 82 L 3-6, 3-6

Muster in his best season could get to #1 with most of his pts coming from clay ...what does it tell you about him not even in the top 20 at this time? what was his clay form? muster kind of was owned by courier during this period. so it wasn't a huge surprise. do the research. courier beat muster bad in rome and earlier in the year on hardcourts.

so what is this crap about muster not having a high ranking because he was a specialist? he actually got to #1 by actually winning lots of clay tournaments and being essentially that - a specialist. muster deserved to draw courier in the second round - he wasn't all that hot.

Players like Ivanisevic and Korda who performed well on all surfaces would get a pretty good seeding as a result, as they would be ranked highly based on their ability to perform on all surfaces.

Your insinuation is that the final round opponent is always the toughest. By your logic I guess Kuznetsova was the toughest opponent for Henin at the 2007 French, not Venus and Serena the rounds before. Next time think before you speak, try even making it a habit. It would do wonders for you.
.

so what if goran and korda got a high seeding (korda was #9 btw)? they still have to win matches to get to the final rounds. its still NOT IMPRESSIVE and indicative of CLAY DEPTH when those guys are playing in the second week.

if ur clay depth argument is correct, other CLAY specialists who should have taken both korda and goran out on their non-preferred surfaces. mancini, medvedev and muster aren't the only clay players around, right? But where was the clay depth to take care of goran (surface specialist) and korda (clay was not his preferred surface)?

a difference of semi vs quarter...or final vs semi is no problem.

but a difference between 2nd round and QF...3rd round and final...yes that is usually a difference in quality. the best players get to the latter rounds - one or two rounds not necessarily a huge difference... but 1st week vs 2nd week - definitely.

and i still havent figured out what the hell federer has anything to do with this thread, but somehow you managed to include him in your post. you are quite amazing, really!

not sure where i referred to nadal's performances as more impressive, either, LOL. you just pulled that one from thin air.

bottomline - i found your characterizations of goran and korda hilarious. now you are just backtracking claiming they were actually among the weakest opponents in courier's draw. so i guess courier had a nice fortune in the second week with two of his opponents playing on their least preferred surfaces.

 

[World Beater]

medvedev wasn't even top 100 at the time and wouldnt hit make a major ranking jump until later in the year that too..not on CLAY. it was the HC season.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

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?

Fantastic performance, no doubt!! However, Muster was FAR from his prime in 1992, Kroon was an overweight Swedish journey-man who spent the night playing poker and chasing women, and how in the hell did he lose a set 2-6 against Goran on clay??:shock:

 

[World Beater]

Uh....Korda was the OPPOSITE of topspin. Korda was one of the MOST powerful fastball hitters tennis has ever seen. He hit moderate topspin for rallies and then opened up with ridiculous, wild drives. He still may have the FASTEST forehand and backhand of all time.

Yes, on Goran I agree, the most devasting 1st serve tennis has ever seen, but his versatility gets very overlooked.

Another player that should be not overlooked is Mancini. Very short career aside, he DESTROYED tennis balls. Becker after getting hit by a Mancini backhand said that he felt like he'd been shot and that no other player hits the ball as hard, not "even Lendl". Tiriac also mentioned that Mancini hits the ball harder than the young, wild, Agassi. One of the absolute greatest topspin backhands of all time, and a forehand to match.

*sarcasm*

10 char.

 

[allcourter2008]

Courier played some great tennis, but that's hardly the best ever FO performance.

Agassi was still a ballbasher, Ivanisevic was never a threat on clay, Muster way below his 95 level, Korda's a better version of Blake.

I think Courier's opponents had a combined amount of 0 slams and 1 slam finals at that point.

 

[World Beater]

Courier played some great tennis, but that's hardly the best ever FO performance.

Agassi was still a ballbasher, Ivanisevic was never a threat on clay, Muster way below his 95 level. I think his opponents had a combined amount of 0 slams and probably 0 slam finals at that point.

pretty much agree. although i wont comment on agassi.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Great performance from Courier, still some people on here think Roddick is better than him.

Not on clay, but a lot better on grass, a little better on HC.

 

[allcourter2008]

pretty much agree. although i wont comment on agassi.

Agassi was a ballbasher in his earlier days, he went way too often for broke. That's why he wasn't consistent back then, he could lose and win against pretty much anyone.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Nadal's 2008 French Open:

R128 Thomaz Bellucci (BRA) 76 W 7-5, 6-3, 6-1
R64 Nicolas Devilder (FRA) 148 W 6-4, 6-0, 6-1
R32 Jarkko Nieminen (FIN) 26 W 6-1, 6-3, 6-1
R16 Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 23 W 6-1, 6-0, 6-2
Q Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 20 W 6-1, 6-1, 6-1
S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 6-4, 6-2, 7-6(3)
W Roger Federer (SUI) 1 W 6-1, 6-3, 6-0

Nadal won 21 sets during the 08 FO. 12 of those sets were either 6-0 or 6-1.

Nicolas Almagro-led the tour in CC wins going into the FO last season (24). Was playing the best tennis of his career, coming off 2 titles and career high rank of 17.

Again, the fact not that he lost, but got TRIPLE BREADSTICKED is what is so impressive.

Novak Djokovic-had won the MS title in Rome coming into the FO. Former QF and SF at the French. Nadal took it easy on him-he at least got to a breaker. Another straight sets victory.

Roger Federer-in 3 previous RG meetings, had at least managed to take a set off of Nadal. Yet Nadal absolutely embarrases him, allowing him to win only 4 games. Sure, Fed was off form, but 4 GAMES? Even a minorly off form Fed would get more than 4 games, Nadal was just playing exemplary tennis at this stage, the most impressive GS final performance seen in a long time.

To put 7 matches together like this, IMO no question, Rafael Nadal 2008 was the greatest performance in FO history.

 

[fluffy Beaver]

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.

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.

Nadal's 2008 French Open:

R128 Thomaz Bellucci (BRA) 76 W 7-5, 6-3, 6-1
R64 Nicolas Devilder (FRA) 148 W 6-4, 6-0, 6-1
R32 Jarkko Nieminen (FIN) 26 W 6-1, 6-3, 6-1
R16 Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 23 W 6-1, 6-0, 6-2
Q Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 20 W 6-1, 6-1, 6-1
S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 6-4, 6-2, 7-6(3)
W Roger Federer (SUI) 1 W 6-1, 6-3, 6-0

Nadal won 21 sets during the 08 FO. 12 of those sets were either 6-0 or 6-1.

Nicolas Almagro-led the tour in CC wins going into the FO last season (24). Was playing the best tennis of his career, coming off 2 titles and career high rank of 17.

Again, the fact not that he lost, but got TRIPLE BREADSTICKED is what is so impressive.

Novak Djokovic-had won the MS title in Rome coming into the FO. Former QF and SF at the French. Nadal took it easy on him-he at least got to a breaker. Another straight sets victory.

Roger Federer-in 3 previous RG meetings, had at least managed to take a set off of Nadal. Yet Nadal absolutely embarrases him, allowing him to win only 4 games. Sure, Fed was off form, but 4 GAMES? Even a minorly off form Fed would get more than 4 games, Nadal was just playing exemplary tennis at this stage, the most impressive GS final performance seen in a long time.

To put 7 matches together like this, IMO no question, Rafael Nadal 2008 was the greatest performance in FO history.

umm, do you just keep copying and pasting your own post but slightly keep editing each one? You've basically said the same thing 3 times, I think we get your point.

 

[prosealster]

Uh....Korda was the OPPOSITE of topspin. Korda was one of the MOST powerful fastball hitters tennis has ever seen. He hit moderate topspin for rallies and then opened up with ridiculous, wild drives. He still may have the FASTEST forehand and backhand of all time.

Yes, on Goran I agree, the most devasting 1st serve tennis has ever seen, but his versatility gets very overlooked.

Another player that should be not overlooked is Mancini. Very short career aside, he DESTROYED tennis balls. Becker after getting hit by a Mancini backhand said that he felt like he'd been shot and that no other player hits the ball as hard, not "even Lendl". Tiriac also mentioned that Mancini hits the ball harder than the young, wild, Agassi. One of the absolute greatest topspin backhands of all time, and a forehand to match.

sure korda was a awesome ball striker....i was a big fan of his...but we cant ignore the fact that he has done nothing on clay...when he is on..he is awesome...but he lacked the consistency to succeed on clay..

agree with mancini....huge ball striker

 

[aphex]

Wow! korda made the RG final?

The 90s is clearly a very weak era.

Amirite GS?

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Wow! korda made the RG final?

The 90s is clearly a very weak era.

Amirite GS?

Lol, you are gonna give him grey hair

 

[drwood]

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?

Agreed...I loved Courier's game -- VERY underrated on these boards. His record against Sampras after 91 was like Roddick vs. Fed -- good enough to get deep into slams, but couldn't beat Pete when it mattered (92 US Open semis, 93 Wimby final, 94 Aus SF, 95 Aus QF, 95 US SF, even 96 French for goodness sakes -- only win was 94 French)

Muster 95 was great, but he was getting KILLED in the final against Chang 5-2 in the first set before Chang choked. Prime Courier beats prime Muster b/c he did it in the same era against much better competition. Prime Courier would have never lost to someone like Stich on clay.

I'm not sure how prime Courier would stack up against prime Nadal on clay. Would probably give the edge to Nadal b/c superior movement and backhand, but its not by much...

 

[The-Champ]

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?

I'd pick Djokovic over medvedev anytime anywhere. Djokovic had to face Nadal twice in a semi-final at the FO. Everytime he makes a final of masters series on clay, Nadal was always there to stop him, how many times did that happen this year for instance?

You could argue for muster and AA though.

 

[thalivest]

I'd pick Djokovic over medvedev anytime anywhere. Djokovic had to face Nadal twice in a semi-final at the FO. Everytime he makes a final of masters series on clay, Nadal was always there to stop him, how many times did that happen this year for instance?

You could argue for muster and AA though.

There are many others who can stop Djokovic on clay besides Nadal. He is 0-3 vs David Ferrer on clay for goodness sakes. He only beat Federer once and Roger played awful in that match and still had break points to go up a set and two breaks. This years French he wasnt in Nadal's half and Kohlschreiber stopped him in 3 straight sets. The 3 Frenchs before that he lost to Nadal but who did he have to beat. One good win over Gonzalez, and one so so win over Mathieu, thats it.

Djokovic would never beat prime Kuerten in straight sets at the French as Medvedev did once.

 

[JennyS]

An American man having a dominant French Open. What a concept!

 

[egn]

Borg 1978 lost ONLY 32 GAMES ALL TOURNAMENT.

Courier lost 63...that is nearly twice as many. Not to mention Courier was winning it all on his forehand, he was very good on clay, but a primed Borg, Lendl, Muster, Kureten or Nadal would have disposed of him in my opinion within 4 sets.

The strength of the draws is basically the same, frankly if we are going to talk about the best ever French Open performance calculating draw strength it has to go to 1982 Wilander.

Wilander beat 4 top 5 PLAYERS in a row, who were all outstanding clay players, two won the French Open, one won multiples, Clerc made multiple semifinals and Vitas made semis and finals on the surface. The four were strong clay courters and Wialdner beat all 4 of them in a row in one tournament. That deserves quite a bit of recognition. Mind you 82 was the year Lendl was supposed to win the French, and nobody expected Wilander to get through any of them and especially Vilas. If we are talking impressive that is impressive but best performance is Borg 78, I don't know how this can be argued.

 

[Steve132]

Nadal's 2008 French Open:

R128 Thomaz Bellucci (BRA) 76 W 7-5, 6-3, 6-1
R64 Nicolas Devilder (FRA) 148 W 6-4, 6-0, 6-1
R32 Jarkko Nieminen (FIN) 26 W 6-1, 6-3, 6-1
R16 Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 23 W 6-1, 6-0, 6-2
Q Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 20 W 6-1, 6-1, 6-1
S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 6-4, 6-2, 7-6(3)
W Roger Federer (SUI) 1 W 6-1, 6-3, 6-0

Nadal won 21 sets during the 08 FO. 12 of those sets were either 6-0 or 6-1.

Nicolas Almagro-led the tour in CC wins going into the FO last season (24). Was playing the best tennis of his career, coming off 2 titles and career high rank of 17.

Again, the fact not that he lost, but got TRIPLE BREADSTICKED is what is so impressive.

Novak Djokovic-had won the MS title in Rome coming into the FO. Former QF and SF at the French. Nadal took it easy on him-he at least got to a breaker. Another straight sets victory.

Roger Federer-in 3 previous RG meetings, had at least managed to take a set off of Nadal. Yet Nadal absolutely embarrases him, allowing him to win only 4 games. Sure, Fed was off form, but 4 GAMES? Even a minorly off form Fed would get more than 4 games, Nadal was just playing exemplary tennis at this stage, the most impressive GS final performance seen in a long time.

To put 7 matches together like this, IMO no question, Rafael Nadal 2008 was the greatest performance in FO history.

A very impressive performance, no doubt, but Borg's in 1978 can match it. Borg lost only 32 games in 7 matches on his way to the title, beating clay court specialists such as Bertolucci, Ramirez, Barazzutti and Vilas.

Borg was almost as spectacular in 1980, losing just 38 games in 7 matches, but I don't think that his competition was quite as strong. His 1978 tournament and Nadal's 2008 win are in my view easily the most dominant performances at Roland Garros in the Open era.

 

[Blinkism]

grafselesfan is actually Jim Courier in disguise

 

[drwood]

Borg 1978 lost ONLY 32 GAMES ALL TOURNAMENT.

Courier lost 63...that is nearly twice as many. Not to mention Courier was winning it all on his forehand, he was very good on clay, but a primed Borg, Lendl, Muster, Kureten or Nadal would have disposed of him in my opinion within 4 sets.

The strength of the draws is basically the same, frankly if we are going to talk about the best ever French Open performance calculating draw strength it has to go to 1982 Wilander.

Wilander beat 4 top 5 PLAYERS in a row, who were all outstanding clay players, two won the French Open, one won multiples, Clerc made multiple semifinals and Vitas made semis and finals on the surface. The four were strong clay courters and Wialdner beat all 4 of them in a row in one tournament. That deserves quite a bit of recognition. Mind you 82 was the year Lendl was supposed to win the French, and nobody expected Wilander to get through any of them and especially Vilas. If we are talking impressive that is impressive but best performance is Borg 78, I don't know how this can be argued.

Because the level of Borg's competition in 78 wasn't great -- remember Connors didn't even play the French that year, and he had beaten Borg 2 yrs earlier in the US Open final on clay.

No one has DOMINATED the high level of competition at a French from start to finish the way Courier did in 92. I agree that prime Nadal is better, but prime Courier would definitely beat prime Muster -- he owned him on all surfaces, including clay.

None of Nadal's draws compare with Courier's 1992 draw.

 

[Steve132]

Because the level of Borg's competition in 78 wasn't great -- remember Connors didn't even play the French that year, and he had beaten Borg 2 yrs earlier in the US Open final on clay.

I beg to differ. Borg had to get past four clay court specialists on his way to the 1978 title - Bertolucci, Ramirez, Barazzutti and Vilas. They represented competition at least as strong as any that Courier ever faced.

No one has DOMINATED the high level of competition at a French from start to finish the way Courier did in 92. I agree that prime Nadal is better, but prime Courier would definitely beat prime Muster -- he owned him on all surfaces, including clay.

In 1982 Mats Wilander had to defeat Lendl, Gerulaitis, Clerc and Vilas to win the French Open. That was a stronger clay court field than any seen in the 90's.

 

[egn]

Excellent breakdown. Your memory of that time period is great. You really documented well the strength of the 90s clay courts field, hence why I am so highly praising such dominant run as Courier's in 92, as that was almost unheard of in the 90s with the depth of the clay court fields.

The gap between Sampras and Federer on clay is indeed exagerrated. Federer is superior on clay but not by nearly the extent as their results. Federer gets a free ride to the French Open final every year, and with Nadal ever out like this year pretty much a free ride to the title. Heck he had a free ride to the title in the joke 2004 field and still blew it by losing to a hip cripped 90s holdover.

Put Sampras of 1992-1994 in the 2002-2004 clay court field and see what happens. Heck even 1997 to 1999 he probably could do better looking at the French looking at what is around now.

Put Federer of 2005-2009 vs the 1995-1999 fields and see if he is still making every big clay court final.

Sampras could get a final from 2002-2004 but lets be real him winning is still quite a stretch. We all trash on Coria but he played damn good clay court tennis and I am not sure if he would actually be able to choke away that lead to Sampras. The problem with Sampras is his style of play did not suit clay, seriously, whether or not he played the best year of his life a strong defensive baseliner good take him out on the surface. Especially one who could run down his volleys on clay like Coria or Gaudio. Lets be real if you play on clay and use a serve and volley strategy those balls will be sitting up and speedy guys will have tons of time to get to those balls. Coria and Gaudio were two of the fastest players on the tour, Coria was actually praised as the faster player until Monfils came around. Their speed plus the extra time clay would give for them to reach the volleys would hurt the strategy. I doubt Sampras could go toe to toe with them in long baseline rallys with a lot of topspin and as much of a big match player he is, I just frankly don't think he could actually pull it off. Everyone talks oh HENMAN made it to the semis, well Rafter made it to the semis in the 90s and so did Krajicek.

Krajicek fell to Courier in 1993
Rafter to Brug in 1997
Henman to Coria in 2004
Sampras was better than all of them yes, but in reality good serve and volley players and great ones will fall on clay to a strong baseliner even if they play their best. See French Open 1984 final. There are odditys (Panatta/Borg) but I don't think Sampras would be that oddity. He was not comfortable on clay, he never tried hard enough to win there and frankly unless he could completely own Coria's serve I don't see him winning against him. Gaudio who knows..depends on which Gaudio shows up.

So here comes my trashing...

On The Federer statement, no offense who in the late 90s stops a prime Federer..he doesn't win 95..but 96-99 are all possibilities. Lets see Stitch and Kafelnikov, old aching bones Brug and baby Kuerten (OH NO HE LOST TO OLD KUERTEN..lets not bring up though the fact that Fed handeled him pretty easiliy in 2002), then in 1998..Moya, Mantilla, Pilione...Corretja could definitely give him troubles though..I would not be suprised if Corretja 98 could be a prime Fed but I think prime Fed would perform a lot better than he did in 2000 and 1999 a year when nobody in the top 10 was a semifinalist, Corretja played like garbage, Kuerten was not in prime and Medvedev resurged, its fair to say he has a good chance in these French Opens. If we are going to hand Sampras one between 2002-2004 I think you should acknowledge Fed would pikc up 1 if not 2 between 96-99.

Because the level of Borg's competition in 78 wasn't great -- remember Connors didn't even play the French that year, and he had beaten Borg 2 yrs earlier in the US Open final on clay.

No one has DOMINATED the high level of competition at a French from start to finish the way Courier did in 92. I agree that prime Nadal is better, but prime Courier would definitely beat prime Muster -- he owned him on all surfaces, including clay.

None of Nadal's draws compare with Courier's 1992 draw.

Connors beat Borg on clay in 76 so him not being present how makes the field weak? Borg by 78 was far better than he was in 76. Second of all Vilas and Ramirez were damn strong as well as Barazzutti. I don't think of Korda to be that impressive he was not that strong on clay he made a good run, Medvedev is equal to Ramierz and Vilas is equal to either Muster or Agassi whichever one you want though I think he was better than both on clay anyway, Muster was way too inconsistent and Vilas was more suited to the surface. Tanner is just like Ivansevic and the other random players probably slightly favor Borg as the ones he played were clay court specialists though overall Courier wins out because Vilas is like Agassi and Muster trumps one of the Borg clay court specialists for not being as good as Muster. HOWEVER...I am pretty sure Borg not dropping a set and losing about 30 less games than Courier more than makes up for this..