Great 1-slam winner in the Open Era

[Gizo]

I like Stich's achievements across all surfaces:

Outdoor hard courts:
1994 US Open finalist
1993 Australian Open semi-finalist
Won 2 titles overall

Grass:
1991 Wimbledon champion
1997 Wimbledon semi-finalist
Won 4 titles overall (winning Wimbledon, Queen’s, Halle and Rosmalen, which Hewitt also later did, is quite a nice feat IMO).

Indoor carpet / hard courts:
1993 YEC champion
1992 Grand Slam Cup champion
1993 Stockholm champion
Won 9 titles overall

Clay:
1996 RG finalist
1991 RG semi-finalist
1993 Hamburg champion
Won 3 titles overall

And as others have said, he had some huge wins along the way, i.e. Edberg and Becker at Wimbledon in 1991, Sampras in the YEC final in 1993, Muster (who had won 99 out of his last 102 matches on clay) at RG in 1996 etc.

And IMO the 3 biggest stages in doubles tennis in no-particular order are clearly the Wimbledon final, Olympic final, and doubles rubber in a Davis Cup final (well under the traditional format when it was always live), with the finals of the other 3 majors definitely a level below that (Wimbledon has traditionally always been a far bigger deal than the other 3 majors in terms of doubles tennis). And Stich was part of pairings that won all 3 of those matches during his career.

I believe that he is the only 1 time winner from the open era, whose triumph wasn't at a heavily depleted Australian Open (so excluding my favourite Gerulaitis), to both reach the semi-finals or better at all 4 majors, and to reach 2 semi-finals (or better) apiece in majors on grass, clay and hard courts.

Orantes never entered the Australian 'Open' during his career, with his only trip to Kooyong at the 1968 Australian Championships, a few months before the open era began. He did reach the semi-finals or better at RG, Wimbledon (in 1972 with quite a few big name players including the 2 time defending champion Newcombe banned) and the US Open.

 

[Moose Malloy]

It's a good question.
As it wasn't by choice, I'm guessing it might have been that both Chang and Muster had slightly longer careers than Stich.

As an American, Chang probably was shown more often as well, as I'd be a little at the mercy of who was televised.

Also, for whatever reason, I just have much more of a mental picture of the other two. Chang with his winning RG at age 17, the underarm serve, the sheer speed. Muster's dominance on clay, very physical style, battling back from a car accident (?) and serious knee injury. Stich was just as good if not better, but I just don't have those pictures or narratives with him.

Hmm, interesting. I'm also an American and saw a ton of Stich on TV(he was in 3 major finals, while Muster was only in one. In those days majors - esp the USO where Stich made a final - got way more tv coverage that all the clay events than Muster won - espn had very limited coverage of Monte Carlo, Rome etc. And of course, not one second of Barcelona was ever shown on US TV. But they actually had pretty great coverage of YEC in Germany which Stich won - that '93 final was shown live on ESPN while Monte Carlo and Rome were shown edited and on tape delay. And there was good coverage of the Grand Slam Cup, his 92 final win was also live on ESPN. The more I think about it, I'd be surprised if Muster was shown on TV more than Stich in the US back then)

And to me him beating Edberg and Becker back to back at 91 W was as big a tennis win as there could be in 90s (he was 66-1 to win the title at the start of the event), it got way more attention in US media than Muster winning 95 RG.

 

[Gizo]

The all German Stich-Becker Wimbledon final in 1991 drew noticeably better ratings in the US, than the all US Sampras-Courier final there 2 years later.

Then again the 1993 final was on the 4th of July, so maybe that's quite a big mitigating factor.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I like Stich's achievements across all surfaces:

Outdoor hard courts:
1994 US Open finalist
1993 Australian Open semi-finalist
Won 2 titles overall

Grass:
1991 Wimbledon champion
1997 Wimbledon semi-finalist
Won 4 titles overall (winning Wimbledon, Queen’s, Halle and Rosmalen, which Hewitt also later did, is quite a nice feat IMO).

Indoor carpet / hard courts:
1993 YEC champion
1992 Grand Slam Cup champion
1993 Stockholm champion
Won 9 titles overall

Clay:
1996 RG finalist
1991 RG semi-finalist
1993 Hamburg champion
Won 3 titles overall

And as others have said, he had some huge wins along the way, i.e. Edberg and Becker at Wimbledon in 1991, Sampras in the YEC final in 1993, Muster (who had won 99 out of his last 102 matches on clay) at RG in 1996 etc.

And IMO the 3 biggest stages in doubles tennis in no-particular order are clearly the Wimbledon final, Olympic final, and doubles rubber in a Davis Cup final (well under the traditional format when it was always live), with the finals of the other 3 majors definitely a level below that (Wimbledon has traditionally always been a far bigger deal than the other 3 majors in terms of doubles tennis). And Stich was part of pairings that won all 3 of those matches during his career.

I believe that he is the only 1 time winner from the open era, whose triumph wasn't at a heavily depleted Australian Open (so excluding my favourite Gerulaitis), to both reach the semi-finals or better at all 4 majors, and to reach 2 semi-finals (or better) apiece in majors on grass, clay and hard courts.

Orantes never entered the Australian 'Open' during his career, with his only trip to Kooyong at the 1968 Australian Championships, a few months before the open era began. He did reach the semi-finals or better at RG, Wimbledon (in 1972 with quite a few big name players including the 2 time defending champion Newcombe banned) and the US Open.

Yeah at the time I definitely took note of his all surface ability(him winning on all surfaces in '91 etc). We all know how rare it was in that decade for players to do well on all surfaces.
As far as him making 2 semis or better in majors on 3 surfaces, I believe the only other player to do that from 1991 to 2006(when Fed made his 2nd RG semi) was Agassi, right?

 

[Gizo]

Yeah at the time I definitely took note of his all surface ability(him winning on all surfaces in '91 etc). We all know how rare it was in that decade for players to do well on all surfaces.
As far as him making 2 semis or better in majors on 3 surfaces, I believe the only other player to do that from 1991 to 2006(when Fed made his 2nd RG semi) was Agassi, right?

Yes that's correct, and a very nice stat !

And I agree that his ability on all surfaces, when conditions and playing styles were far more polarised, was a very big deal. I remember in 1991 when he reached the semis at RG and then won Wimbledon, both Newcombe and Courier (who he played in both tournaments) were very complimentary about his variety and ability to adjust his playing patterns so much.

 

[Sport]

Medvedev, no doubt.

First of all, Medvedev beat a late-prime Djokovic in a match where the GOAT was seek9ng to complete the Grand Slam for the first tune since Laver. Roddick, on the other hand, won his one and only US Open title bearing the clay specialist Juan Carlos Ferrero in the final. Novak Djokovic >>>>> Ferrero. Ferrero has as many Slams as Carreño Busta and thus it's unobjective to compare him to the GOAT.


Daniil has 2 more weeks at #1 than Roddick. And Roddick achieved the #1 weeks in the pre-Big 3 era, before Federer had peaked. Once Federer peaked, he did nothing to be #1. Medvedev, on the other hand, was #1 facing late-prime (winning 3 Slams per year) Djokovic, though the Serbian lostsome points due to his own decission to not get vaccinated (which is part of the sport, sports are ALWAYS played in a society ruled by politics, see for instance how Max Decugis could not play RG during the First World War, which hampered his chances to achieve 13 RG titles).

Logico-methodological analysis:

Serve: Roddick.
Forehand: Roddick.
Backhand: Medvedev
Return: Medvedev (averages more breaks per return game and statistics are the only way to be objective).
Baseline game: Medvedev (better court coverage and shot resiliance).
Velocity: Medvedev.
Baseline game: Medvedev.
Completeness: Medvedev (has reached QF of all 4 Slams, a feat Roddick never avhieved, plus Daniil possesses a prestigious Rome title while Roddick has 0 Masters 1000 finals on clay, yes Roddick hasn't reached the final of any single clay Masters 1000).

 

[buscemi]

Medvedev, no doubt.

First of all, Medvedev beat a late-prime Djokovic in a match where the GOAT was seek9ng to complete the Grand Slam for the first tune since Laver. Roddick, on the other hand, won his one and only US Open title bearing the clay specialist Juan Carlos Ferrero in the final. Novak Djokovic >>>>> Ferrero. Ferrero has as many Slams as Carreño Busta and thus it's unobjective to compare him to the GOAT.


Daniil has 2 more weeks at #1 than Roddick. And Roddick achieved the #1 weeks in the pre-Big 3 era, before Federer had peaked. Once Federer peaked, he did nothing to be #1. Medvedev, on the other hand, was #1 facing late-prime (winning 3 Slams per year) Djokovic, though the Serbian lostsome points due to his own decission to not get vaccinated (which is part of the sport, sports are ALWAYS played in a society ruled by politics, see for instance how Max Decugis could not play RG during the First World War, which hampered his chances to achieve 13 RG titles).

Logico-methodological analysis:

Serve: Roddick.
Forehand: Roddick.
Backhand: Medvedev
Return: Medvedev (averages more breaks per return game and statistics are the only way to be objective).
Baseline game: Medvedev (better court coverage and shot resiliance).
Velocity: Medvedev.
Baseline game: Medvedev.
Completeness: Medvedev (has reached QF of all 4 Slams, a feat Roddick never avhieved, plus Daniil possesses a prestigious Rome title while Roddick has 0 Masters 1000 finals on clay, yes Roddick hasn't reached the final of any single clay Masters 1000).

That's all fair in terms of Medvedev vs. Roddick, but what about Medvedev vs. Stich?

Medvedev won his U.S. Open by beating late-prime Djokovic. Stich won his Wimbledon by beating peak Becker (and peak Edberg).

Medvedev won his WTF by beating Thiem. Stich won his WTF by beating peak Sampras.

Stich also had a third huge title, winning the Grand Slam Cup, beating Sampras along the way.

Medvedev is 7-7 at the French Open. Stich was 22-8, making a final, beating peak Muster along the way.

And then we have Stich's doubles titles at Wimbledon and the Olympics and his winning singles record against Sampras.

 

[Subway Tennis]

I’d be interested to read that, re the bolded. Do you remember the heading of the thread, by any chance?

I can’t remember it. I wish I could find it. I should have saved the post with attributation. I think it was @urban who made the post?

If I find it again I will post it. There are some incredibly knowledgeable people on here.

 

[mental midget]

Stich 39-44 versus top-10 (22-22 vs. top-five). The best of any of these players, at .470. There is a reason Pete said, "Out of all the guys who were real or potential rivals, Stich was the one who scared me the most." You mention 5-0 at 1993 WTF - I think an undefeated YEC is ≈ Slam. In addition to the GSC and two M1000s credited to him by ATP, there is the 1993 Stuttgart. Also led Ger. to '93 D.C. on 7-1 singles, 4-0 doubles. Eight titles on indoor fast; four on grass; three on clay; three on outdoor hard.

As RaulRamirez said, good post by Pheasant and good cases made for several of the players on the ballot. Muster for sure. Roddick, Medvedev. And I am always happy to hear any argument putting del Potro first among this group.

Delpo 53-78 vs. top 10 = .404, putting him fourth on this list, including Stich. For "versus top-10," it goes Medvedev, Stich, Muster, del Potro. Delpo's top-10 record is 36-33 not counting all his matches against the Big Three.

I voted Stich. Against him we have the brute force of Muster, with 44 titles, fine top-10 record, fine D.C. record, surface dominance and amazing comeback from an injury that would have ended most pro tennis careers. We have the even greater, more persistent comebacks of Juan Martin and the tragedy of the Tower of Tandil, a player who beat peak Djokovic and Nadal in the same tournament as well as Nadal and Federer at USO, and despite all the injuries and comebacks has close to 200 weeks at No. 6 or better on the ATP rankings. We have the ongoing brilliance of Medvedev, who likely will not be in this particular discussion for very long. We have Andy with his millimeter-close loss at 2009 Wimbledon and another tough one at 2004.

stich gets my vote too, VERY closely followed by delpo. orantes and vilas before my time so can't really have an opinion there.

also somebody mentioned korda...not changing my vote but i will say that that guy was capable of playing some crazy good tennis, heck of a ball striker, very talented.

 

[The Sinner]

stich gets my vote too, VERY closely followed by delpo. orantes and vilas before my time so can't really have an opinion there.

also somebody mentioned korda...not changing my vote but i will say that that guy was capable of playing some crazy good tennis, heck of a ball striker, very talented.

I can understand the reasoning behind Stich, won't question it. However, I am curious as to why you'd pick Delpo over Roddick. Don't get me wrong, I actually liked Delpo (way more than A-Rod), but looking back at their careers, Roddick had way more slam finals (and SFs) appearances, way more Masters 1000 titles, better win/loss % (AR: 74%, 69%, 74% & JMDP: 73%, 65%, 72% at Slams, Masters, and overall). Plus Roddick had 9 YE top 10 finishes consecutively, compared to 5 for Delpo. I'd like to hear your case for the Tower of Tandil.

 

[Drob]

And IMO the 3 biggest stages in doubles tennis in no-particular order are clearly the Wimbledon final, Olympic final, and doubles rubber in a Davis Cup final (well under the traditional format when it was always live), with the finals of the other 3 majors definitely a level below that (Wimbledon has traditionally always been a far bigger deal than the other 3 majors in terms of doubles tennis). And Stich was part of pairings that won all 3 of those matches during his career.

Interesting. We don't usually talk about doubles. I mention doubles only if relevant to Davis Cup performance. But in a "tiebreak" or "close call" between or among players, doubles is an interesting factor. We should look at it more often.

Doubles Open Era - One-Slammers


Wimbledon

Roche 4 titles
Gerulaitis 1 title
Stich 1 title
Cash 2 finals

FO

Noah 1 title, 1 final
Roche 1 title
Gomez 1 title
Gerulaitis 1 title
Ivanisevic 2 finals
Orantes 1 final


USO
Gomez 1 title
Gimeno 1 final


AO

Roche 3 titles
Edmondson 1 final



Olympic Gold

Stich


Davis Cup Doubles (through 2018)

Stich 14-2
Ivanisevic 20-6
Muster 9-10
del Potro 1-2
Gerulaitis 0-0
Krajicek 1-0
Cilic 10-6
Roddick 0-0
Gimeno 5-5
Orantes 21-8
Moya 0-0
Ferrero 0-1
Roche 7-2


sure i am leaving someone out.


Interesting but maybe not fair. i wish players would play doubles. Top-20 guys don't play doubles these days. Fed and Murray played a goodly amt of DC doubles. But not tournaments.

Really, last top player to win a Slam doubles was Hewitt, I think. Then Kafelnikov, then Stich, Gomez, Edberg. Pretty sparse. And doubles has become so particular - it is like a different game.

 

[Drob]

I think these players just have too many fundamental weaknesses and not the strengths to make up for them.

Cool Nat. Thanks. This subject would be more for the weak era threads. We are quite far apart in our approaches and what we are factoring.

Admit Rublev was a poor choice. A Khachanov or Rudd is more dangerous player than Rublev on biggest stage.

 

[ballamaz]

Greatest (No. of masters): Muster 8 > Roddick 5

Best (performance in one year): Muster 1995 (3 masters, winning 82.7%) > Roddick 2003 (2 masters, 79.1%)

 

[NatF]

Cool Nat. Thanks. This subject would be more for the weak era threads. We are quite far apart in our approaches and what we are factoring.

Admit Rublev was a poor choice. A Khachanov or Rudd is more dangerous player than Rublev on biggest stage.

What have Ruud or Khachanov done to warrant being called dangerous on the biggest stage?

...and sure that's fair enough, I would be surprised if even by a quantative approach this current era came out as anything but on the weaker end but we can agree to disagree. I can't seperate what I see and judge with my eyes from how I evaluate these players and in turn the era. For example Tsitsipas, his weakness on the backhand and return is just so glaring. Even in his best form he couldn't generate a single BP in the last three sets of the 2021 RG final, and this on clay the most return friendly surface. If you go through his matches this kind of weak performance on return is far from uncommon. I think if we go down the list of these players I think they're all pretty heavily flawed. Of course other players from past generations had flaws too but IMO it's more pronounced with this lot. I consider someone like Tsonga a better player than all of them, with his serve, forehand, transition game etc...he just has a more potent game.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Going back to Krajicek, some impressive surface versatility in an an era where it was rare(and also he was oft injured). Made semis of 3 of the 4 majors(AO, RG, and of course W). Won Miami(and a lot on carpet of course) But he also won Barcelona(beating a true clay specialist in final)! Runner-up at Rome! Impressive clay runs by someone most of the kids here probably think was just a servebot.

 

[mental midget]

I can understand the reasoning behind Stich, won't question it. However, I am curious as to why you'd pick Delpo over Roddick. Don't get me wrong, I actually liked Delpo (way more than A-Rod), but looking back at their careers, Roddick had way more slam finals (and SFs) appearances, way more Masters 1000 titles, better win/loss % (AR: 74%, 69%, 74% & JMDP: 73%, 65%, 72% at Slams, Masters, and overall). Plus Roddick had 9 YE top 10 finishes consecutively, compared to 5 for Delpo. I'd like to hear your case for the Tower of Tandil.

totally subjective, having watched both their careers start to finish i believe delpo simply produced a higher caliber overall game when on...and importantly, with consistency (as opposed to a player we judge off 1 or 2 magical matches.)

andy does get kinda short changed around here, at the end of the day he had a pretty awesome career. but jmdp in my opinion was a bigger threat to the best players...better ground game, better hands/court sense. if he'd stayed healthy we would have had a very interesting mix at the top of the game.