Is Thomas Muster most overrated Clay Courter

kiki

Banned
Peak Bruguera vs peak Federer on clay, I´ll always take Sergi.Hands down.

None of both at their peak, I´ll always take Federer.Hands down.
 

Vensai

Professional
Peak Bruguera vs peak Federer on clay, I´ll always take Sergi.Hands down.

None of both at their peak, I´ll always take Federer.Hands down.
Your second statement is rather vague. How would they match up?
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Sergi had a mental problem with him.Far more talented but seemed unable to beat Muster.Muster didn´t have a good serve but his volleying was not bad.

Bruguera said that Muster was the toughest opponent he had ever faced because Muster never lost his relentless focus during matches. Bruguera could only focus like that on the odd occasion, as most of the time his focus would go up and down.
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
Your second statement is rather vague. How would they match up?

Bruguera cc peak matches Kuerten
but he lacked focus and could play shank tennis and the difference between his peak play and off zone play is much bigger than Federer' s
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Bruguera cc peak matches Kuerten
but he lacked focus and could play shank tennis and the difference between his peak play and off zone play is much bigger than Federer' s

Federer playing peak CC tennis has gone toe to toe with Nadal and even bagelled him.
 

OTMPut

Hall of Fame
A lot of this misconception was Agassi's fault. Agassi said clay was like a different sport and disrespected Muster. Of course Agassi said all this BEFORE he won RG.

Agassi is a grifter. An ungrateful full of himself d.b.
ITF should have revoked all his slam titles.
 

Leelord337

Hall of Fame
Most overrated is Kuerten IMO.

Funny because he embarrassed Peak Federer at RG.

I second this. I think the Kuerten/Federer match at thee French was the only match Federer didn't have a match point in right? (had match points against Safin, Gasquet, and I forget who else..Nalbandian that year?) when he lost 64 64 64 to Kuerten at the french that year. and only lost 3 or 4 matches for the entire year that year.
 

Feather

Legend
Peak Bruguera vs peak Federer on clay, I´ll always take Sergi.Hands down.

None of both at their peak, I´ll always take Federer.Hands down.

Rome 2006 final

Peak Roger versus peak Rafa on clay, and Roger was just one point away from winning that five set thrilller.

In 2007 he actually bageled Rafa on clay
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Rome 2006 final

Peak Roger versus peak Rafa on clay, and Roger was just one point away from winning that five set thrilller.

In 2007 he actually bageled Rafa on clay

He was just inches away from winning that match, literally. Came to the net 74 times winning 55 of those points (74%). A very impressive performance.
 

ravelok

Banned
Rome 2006 final

Peak Roger versus peak Rafa on clay, and Roger was just one point away from winning that five set thrilller.

Nadal was much better in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2007 on clay than 2006, so Rome 2006 final would hardly have been "peak Rafa". Even if that werent true, lets not create a fantasy that overall peak Federer = peak Rafa on clay. With a head to head of something like 1-6 on clay even in Federer's prime years (some vs teenaged Rafa) there is a huge gap. I venture to guess Muster could do atleast that well overall, if not slightly better. Muster could match Nadal's grinding ability, sliding proficiency on clay, fitness, consistency off the ground, and topspin, which Federer obviously cannot do any of.

As for Muster I would rate him as follows on clay in the open era:

1. Nadal

----mammoth gap-----

2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Vilas
7. Muster
8. Bruguera
9. Courier
10. Rosewall (factoring on in his open era clay play) or Laver (again factoring in only open era clay play)

I dont think he is either under or overrated. I think most rate him about right.
 

kiki

Banned
I don' t see where Muster récord is better than Kodes and where Rosewall' s only open era cc récord is anything close to Nastase or Orantes
 

ravelok

Banned
I don' t see where Muster récord is better than Kodes and where Rosewall' s only open era cc récord is anything close to Nastase or Orantes

Kodes was never the best clay courter in the world. The two years he won RG the best clay courter of that particular year wasn't playing. Muster was considered by far the best clay courter of 95-96, despite not winning RG in 96. That is the difference between them IMO.

You could be right on Nastase but Orantes was also never considered the worlds best clay courter, and never won RG. He did win the U.S Open on green clay once, but even then I don't think he would be considered as above Borg overall on clay.
 

kiki

Banned
Kodes was never the best clay courter in the world. The two years he won RG the best clay courter of that particular year wasn't playing. Muster was considered by far the best clay courter of 95-96, despite not winning RG in 96. That is the difference between them IMO.

You could be right on Nastase but Orantes was also never considered the worlds best clay courter, and never won RG. He did win the U.S Open on green clay once, but even then I don't think he would be considered as above Borg overall on clay.
Borg?
We compare Orantes vs Open era Rosewall on cc
Both won 1 GS and both lost one cc slam final in open era
But Orantes won far more top class cc events
In fact,as me stated in other threads,he won everything on clay but RG
 

ravelok

Banned
Borg?
We compare Orantes vs Open era Rosewall on cc
Both won 1 GS and both lost one cc slam final in open era
But Orantes won far more top class cc events
In fact,as me stated in other threads,he won everything on clay but RG

Rosewall won RG twice in the Open Era didn't he? That is too much for a non RG winner to overcome IMO.
 

NLBwell

Legend
N

1. Nadal

----mammoth gap-----

2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Vilas
7. Muster
8. Bruguera
9. Courier
10. Rosewall (factoring on in his open era clay play) or Laver (again factoring in only open era clay play)

I dont think he is either under or overrated. I think most rate him about right.

All great clay-courters and I'm not going to nit-pick the rankings, except that the --- mammoth gap --- should be after Borg.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Thomas Muster is considered one of the greatest clay courters ever because he won 40 titles on the surface. But is his clay resume overrated considering how relatively mediocre he performed at the French Open? Apart from his 1995 title, he only made the it past the 4th round on two other occasions (1990 SF and 1998 QF). That means despite his clay prowess, he managed only 3 total trips to the FO QF stage. Compare that to a guy like Guillermo Vilas who also only had 1 FO title but made 3 other finals - losing to Borg twice and Wilanders once. The man backed up his clay accomplishments with deep runs at Roland Garros and only was prevented from multiple titles by all-time greats.

Being an Austrian, I think that Muster is a bit overrated.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Nadal was much better in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2007 on clay than 2006, so Rome 2006 final would hardly have been "peak Rafa". Even if that werent true, lets not create a fantasy that overall peak Federer = peak Rafa on clay. With a head to head of something like 1-6 on clay even in Federer's prime years (some vs teenaged Rafa) there is a huge gap. I venture to guess Muster could do atleast that well overall, if not slightly better. Muster could match Nadal's grinding ability, sliding proficiency on clay, fitness, consistency off the ground, and topspin, which Federer obviously cannot do any of.

As for Muster I would rate him as follows on clay in the open era:

1. Nadal

----mammoth gap-----

2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Vilas
7. Muster
8. Bruguera
9. Courier
10. Rosewall (factoring on in his open era clay play) or Laver (again factoring in only open era clay play)

I dont think he is either under or overrated. I think most rate him about right.

ravelok, I would rank Rosewall ahead of at least Bruguera and Courier.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
I don' t see where Muster récord is better than Kodes and where Rosewall' s only open era cc récord is anything close to Nastase or Orantes

kiki, Rosewall has a better open eras claycourt record than Nastase and Orantes. He stands No.4 in % of claycourt matches won, he won the FO, reached final there and won several claycourt tournaments, the last ones in 1975 (Gstaad and Houston)..

I rank Rosewall No.1 in 1968 and arguably 1970, No.2 in 1969, 1971 and 1972 on clay.
 
Last edited:

ravelok

Banned
All great clay-courters and I'm not going to nit-pick the rankings, except that the --- mammoth gap --- should be after Borg.

No it shouldnt be. Borg is nowhere near Nadal on clay in any sense at this point, and Rosewall could be argued to perhaps even be above Borg on clay (but he wont be only since Rosewall is so underrated regularly) so they are very close.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
No it shouldnt be. Borg is nowhere near Nadal on clay in any sense at this point, and Rosewall could be argued to perhaps even be above Borg on clay (but he wont be only since Rosewall is so underrated regularly) so they are very close.

ravelok, I cannot contradict your statement. Of all really great players, Rosewall is surely the most under-rated. To change this is one of my motives for posting on Talk Tennis.
 

Vensai

Professional
No it shouldnt be. Borg is nowhere near Nadal on clay in any sense at this point, and Rosewall could be argued to perhaps even be above Borg on clay (but he wont be only since Rosewall is so underrated regularly) so they are very close.
You are seriously underrating Borg here.
 

Pebbles10

New User
If Borg and Nadal played in the same age time i really think that Borg is in the same level as Nadal.

But i think i 1988 Wilander would beat both Nadal and Borg because he was the so clever on the court.
 

ravelok

Banned
If Borg and Nadal played in the same age time i really think that Borg is in the same level as Nadal.

I agree Borg at his best played close to the same level as Nadal on clay. The difference is Nadal didnt quit at 25 and instead continued to dominate clay for many years to come. Thus Nadal as his numbers all suggest is now far ahead. Nadal also began to own clay as a teenager, while Borg despite winning RG couldnt even beat Connors when they played on clay in the early years. Borg only dominated clay for 4 years actually- 1978 to 1981. From 1974 to 1977 he played 6 clay slams and won only 2 of the 6, both with some key players absent. Nadal has dominated clay for about 10 years, with the odd exception.

But i think i 1988 Wilander would beat both Nadal and Borg

Not a chance.

You are seriously underrating Borg here.

More like you are underrating Rosewall, like everyone does. Had it been Open tennis then his clay numbers would be about on par with what Nadal's are today in fact, and far superior to Borg's. He would have won about 9 or 10 French Opens total.
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
Vilas won two cc majors, even if he didn´t play Borg at 77 RG.So did Courier.Muster won one.On consistency, he is like Vilas but Guillermo won more majors on the dirt.Muster is more consistent than Courier but 91-92 Courier is better than any Muster cc version.
 

ravelok

Banned
92 Courier vs 95 Muster at the French or any clay tournament would be an amazing match. I would pay lots of money to see that.

Vilas and Muster are similar in that they underachieved a bit at the French, but were dominant and won alot elsewhere. The edge Muster has on Vilas is he wasnt owned so badly by anyone like Vilas was by Borg. Then again he didnt play someone like Borg. Otherwise Vilas is a bit ahead on everything- better overall French results even though both won once, more clay slams although he had a 2nd chance and Muster didnt, even more clay titles, I believe a couple more masters equivalents.
 

ravelok

Banned
ravelok, I would rank Rosewall ahead of at least Bruguera and Courier.

You could be right. I honestly dont know as much about Rosewall's Open Era only (more familiar with his pre Open era) clay achievements as you probably would. I know he won only 1 French, but he did win alot of other clay tournaments, and like many at the time was not playing the French as often due to the big money exhibitions which were in fact more important than the French and Australian back then.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
You could be right. I honestly dont know as much about Rosewall's Open Era only (more familiar with his pre Open era) clay achievements as you probably would. I know he won only 1 French, but he did win alot of other clay tournaments, and like many at the time was not playing the French as often due to the big money exhibitions which were in fact more important than the French and Australian back then.

ravelok, Thanks that you defend Rosewall against those who use to under-rate him.

I don't think that playing exhibitions were the reason why Muscles did not enter the French Open after 1969. In one or two cases it was a boycott by WCT management plus Rosewall put the focus at Wimbledon which is played not long after FO and very exhausting for an old player.

Rosewall won the 1970 Cincinnati tournament which arguably was the biggest claycourt tournament of the year after Paris. He also won the 1971 "Washington Star" WCT tournament where he beat Laver, Smith and other strong players.

In 1972 Laver was better than Rosewall beating him at Houston WCT clearly.

In 1973 Muscles won Houston (beating Kodes 6-2,6-2!) in SF and Stolle in final. Also won Charlotte and Japan Open (beating Newcombe clearly).

In 1975 Rosewall won two strong clay tournaments: Gstaad (Vilas participating) and Houston WCT.

In 1976 he beat strong claycorters Dibbs and Solomon (the latter very clearly).

In 1977 Rosewall won the Tokyo "Gunze" event with a final win over Nastase, probably played on clay.

As late as 1978 he was able to win a set off Dibbs (No.4 in the world) by 6-0!. Rosewall was 43 plus...
 
Muster was not overrated but it's a fair question why he didn't do better at the French Open. I think part of the problem was one leg being shorter than the other due to the accident caught up to him and his abysmal record against attacking players.
 

halbrikj

Rookie
Muster was not overrated but it's a fair question why he didn't do better at the French Open. I think part of the problem was one leg being shorter than the other due to the accident caught up to him and his abysmal record against attacking players.

Yeah, he used to have a hard time with Courier, who attacked him by taking the ball off the rise, and Sampras and Stich got him by attacking at the net. That said, he accomplished everything he wanted to, i.e. FO, #1, and winning where he got injured.
 

halbrikj

Rookie
Also, he was a very good player who had two great years. He went into the FO as the favorite only two times, 95 and 96, and one out of two ain't bad.
 
Yeah, he used to have a hard time with Courier, who attacked him by taking the ball off the rise, and Sampras and Stich got him by attacking at the net. That said, he accomplished everything he wanted to, i.e. FO, #1, and winning where he got injured.

I cringed when I saw he would be playing Edberg. He used to beat Muster like a rented mule.

But I do believe Muster maximized his talents. Both the 1995 French Open and 1997 Players Championship were great moments for him.
 

pjonesy

Professional
I cringed when I saw he would be playing Edberg. He used to beat Muster like a rented mule.

But I do believe Muster maximized his talents. Both the 1995 French Open and 1997 Players Championship were great moments for him.

I think Muster was a tenacious athlete. We saw it when he was rehabbing his knee or playing tennis on any surface. Maybe he did maximize his talent, within the context of his playing style. But I think he could have changed things up a bit, in order to become more effective on the faster surfaces. Honestly, the homogenized courts of the ATP tour right now would be perfect for Muster. Unfortunately for Muster, in the 90s indoor courts and grass courts were very fast. But he certainly felt comfortable on clay and the fact that he won the FO, makes him a legendary clay court player. Any clay court legend will look overrated next to Nadal or Borg.
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
Yes Lauda
Muster was the stajanovist of the pro tour
His best shot was his body but he was once a young promising player
First match saw him live was 1985
 

itoaxel

Banned
He is pretty overrated. Great clay performances in 95 and 96, but overall in his career a very disappointing RG record. Did win the 1 title, but no other times past the quarters. Even in 95 Costa had him beat in the quarters but choked at the end, otherwise Muster would have never gotten past a RG quarterfinal his whole career.

I would rate Bruguera, Courier, possibly Federer, and maybe even Vilas over him on clay. Djokovic if he wins a French I would rank way above Muster on clay.
 

itoaxel

Banned
I would pick Muster over Gomez since Gomez only won 2 clay Masters, and Muster won a ton more. Muster had 1 RG title and 1 semifinal. Gomez made the quarters a whole bunch of times, but never even another semi. Still Gomez was never the hands down best clay courter in the world, let alone 2 whole years like Muster, didnt win many Masters on clay, and he also didn't go very deep (semis or beyond) at Roland Garros hardly ever.
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
Gomez beat Lendl twice on clay court.

However, did not do too well against Wilander.

Both, Muster and Gomez were clearly late blossomers
 

Gizo

Legend
Muster also reached the semis at RG in 1990, where Gomez comfortably brushed him aside on his way to the title. That was the best season of Muster's career on clay aside from his 1995-1996 peak.

Muster had finished as the runner-up to Chesnokov in Monte-Carlo, and to Novacek at Munich, before winning the title at Rome narrowly beating Gomez in the semis before taking revenge on Chesnokov in a one sided final.

Gomez said that he felt that Muster had made a huge mistake in 'showing his hand' in their match at Rome. His words were that "This is Rome, not Paris," Gomez said. "You don't show a guy everything you have in Rome. We may meet again." Those words turned out to be true as he won the match that really mattered in Paris.

Speaking of Chesnokov, I thought and was hoping that he was gong to reach the final from the top half of the draw. I liked Chezzy. He had reached the semis at RG the previous year, and like Gomez and Muster, had enjoyed a very good clay court season that year. However unfortunately he lost to Leconte in 5 sets in the 4th round, and coming back from 2 sets to love down to force a decider. He kept making error after error with his passing shots as Leconte came to the net a lot.
 
Last edited:

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Gomez was much more experienced than Muster in 1990. Muster learned from the 1990 French Open defeat, even though it didn't reflect in results straight away because of burnout. Muster actually lost a load of interest in tennis in late 1990 and early 1991. His coach was sick of his attitude, and told Muster to call him when he was ready to get serious again.
 
Top