Actually, you're right. He totally reminds of Daniel Nestor. He has that weird gangly, loosy goosy like his head is permanently tilted to on side feel to his strokes that Nestor has. They're both lanky guys, same body type and everything. Nestor's much more volatile mentally though than Muller. Muller's aslo definitely more talented.
Similar games though. Nestor was always a decent and sometimes dangerous player, but deep down I think he knew that he'd only really be able to make a name for himself as a doubles specialist. Wise choice.
Both rely on big serves, difficult to read strokes because of their slinky body movements seems to kind of just throw you off a little. Muller's got solid volleys, Nestor better...I'd say good to great volleys. But in every other category Muller's got him beat except maybe movement, neither guys are the fastest but also not the slowest, about average for the pro tour I'd say.
Both guys with pretty good backhands. I'd say the biggest difference is that Muller has a MUCH bigger forehand. Muller's forehand is a legitimate weapon that he can rely on.
Also, I think Muller's service motion is a little more fluid with a little more pop and most noticeably more action on the ball particularly with regard to slice. He's got a simply slice serve down the T that tails away from opponents, not many of today's players have perfected this serve the way guys like Stich and Sampras and Forget used to.
However, with this said, I don't know that I consider Muller a contender quite yet. Much like Joachim Johansson he has to prove he's got that staying power and is consistent enough to bring it for more than just one big match.
It's kind of the intangibles you're talking about, and not every player has them in a career context.
So in that respect, right now I see him more as a Guy Forget type player. A good competitor with top tier talent and a dominant serve. Forget was more of a fine serve and volleyer, and his forehand wasn't as big as Muller's for sure, but his backhand was actually pretty good and his forehand not bad. Forget though is just one of those guys every generation has who kind of just slipped through the cracks. Very dangerous, and every top player is for sure aware of them in the draw and that playing Forget is a potential upset...BUT they also know that in the long run, while Forget might score a big win here or there, or play a brilliant match here or there, and is generally a good competitor, for whatever reason he just seems to lack that little extra, that aura, that the "champions" have.
Guys like Becker and Edberg and Wilander, they have little something extra, that presence that makes you take notice, they just have that aura of the "champ" whereas Pioline and Forget and Leconte types have the aura of flash today, gone tomorrow type players. Players know they can beat you on any given day, that they can look as talented as anyone on any given day, but they also know that they probably won't go the distance.
I think a lot of this has to do with certain guys just having that presence to them, that aura wins usually wins you a few cheap points every set, which at this level is often just enough to save you on your bad days. And believe me, not anyone can ALWAYS play their best tennis everyday. No one plays their best every other day for two straight weeks to win a slam. Just doesn't happen, they're human. But if a guy like Sampras is a little off, there's a saying the top guys, their aura equates to being spotted one game at the start of every set, just those few extra points that your "mystique" alone wins you is often enough to rescue you when you're not at your best.
Muller played his best today. There is no doubt that when he is at his best, he's a world beater...but remember when Pioline played JAW DROPPINGLY brilliantly to take out a hot and completely motivated Stich at Wimbledon? Well, that was one match. Players were probably like, wow, Pioline's playing like a champ today! But then at the same time, I bet you anything next tournament up, they weren't thinking oh shoot, I'm playing a champ in Pioline, but rather they thought hey he's just a regular guy like me except with more talent. BIG DIFFERENCE in how you perceive someone. If Pioline's not playing his best tennis like he was against Stich, this means that the "average" player DOES have a very real and legimate chance to step in and beat him simply because while they know he has talent, they don't fear that talent simply because he doesn't have that certain something, that "it" factor that you either just have or you don't, that carries you through your bad days, that "star" quality that only you have that separates Audrey Hepburn from a hundred other 'refined' beauties from a Paris modeling face book.
To me, Muller he lacks that quality. I know it's foolish to quantify a player's future arc based on that, but to me it DOES make a difference. Ljubicic? Great and dangerous game when he's at his best right? The game of a true top player when at his best right? Sure, but that still doesn't mean he has that "star quality" to him, that presence that makes other players spot a game to him at the start of every set now does it? With a guy like Ljubicic, I get the sense that players just wait for them to comeback down to earth, so to speak; because in their mind, even though they technically have the game to be a top player, they're still just PERCEIVED as an average, ordinary Joe like yourself.
It may seem like I'm overstating this, but I honestly believe that perception is like winning half the battle at this level. If players don't feel your aura, they're not going to go into matches fearing you, EVEN IF you're playing your best. They'll just wait to try and weather the storm. Wheras with a guy like Becker, I think you FELT his presence on the court regardless of how well or poorly he was playing which kind of made him "feel" like a "top player" ALL of the time as opposed to just part-time as was more the case with guys like Pioline and Forget.
Muller and Joachim Johansson and Mathieu and Dent and Srichiphan and Ljubicic and Berdych, etc. for whatever reason they've just never had that aura of "champions," even if on somedays they might look like a million bucks, as good as the "champions," even better on the day perhaps. But alas, they're never really perceived as being "special." Perception doesn't influence you arc? Hardly the case. What happens in high school? Perception is half the battle. Perception DOES mold you, your personality, how you act. Human beings have a tendency to follow almost a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby you follow the script as society OUTwardly perceives you. It does make a difference. How people perceive you and interact with you, how you perceive yourself, all these things mold your eventual career arc in my opinion. Remember, the difference is VERY slight at this level.
Literally, almost every match, even the matches no one sees and are never talked about, nearly every match at the pro level is relatively close in so far as one break here and there usually determines the winner, and what is considered an "easy" win or a "routine" win.
This is why when a player's confidence dips, he can spiral. Look at Alberto Martin, must be a horrible player right since he's lost a million first round matches in a row right? Yeah, you could look at it that way...or you could see the guy who really pushed Agassi for a set and nearly took out the boy wonder Gasquet on not his best surface. In other words, it's not like ALL of these guys can't put up games and play the "perfect" point several times a match. No, they all can. So think about it, if being a little bit down on confidence can send a player skidding, i.e. always seeming to lose by that one break every set...then what? You think how players perceive you won't make a difference? I don't think so. Some players just have that "X" factor known as charisma or aura or "mojo" or whatever you want to call it the others don't. If confidence can make the difference between a few critical points here and there, then there is no doubt in my mind that having that "aura" doesn't make the same difference.
Although Muller beat Roddick, a true top player, today. I have no doubt that the rest of the draw feels relieved that Roddick is out of the way. Sure, they no Muller's just as dangerous as a top player when at his best, but they also know that in their hearts they still see him as Gilles, they're locker room comrade, the guy who doesn't have the entourage surrounding him, doesn't have security guards and supermodels hugging him a little too close for comfort, etc.
Players aren't looking at Muller like hey, he's a star. They're looking at him and thinking sure he played well ONE match, but hey the rest of the time he's just a regular guy like me! We shared McDonald's together and everything...it's just not the same thing. Which is why guys like Ljubic can play like gang busters for awhile and look like world beaters, but the very next tournament, it's not like players are rolling over and chanting, "all hail the Lubeman, the Lubinator, the Luminous one."
