Muster at the French Open

qindarka

Rookie
Muster had generally a great record on clay in the 90s, winning a total of 6 masters series and numerous other titles. He of course, won the French Open in 1995.

I have a question though, why is his record at Roland Garros otherwise so underwhelming? Outside of his one title win, he made one other SF and one other QF. From 1991-1994 and 1996-1997, he failed to even make the quarters there.
 

Hmgraphite1

Hall of Fame
He was inspiring to watch. A real prize fighter. He worked so hard out there. His knee was pinned between a couple cars and he still made a comeback after it. Need to find some footage from back then , think Ferrer times 2, a real workhorse.
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
Muster had generally a great record on clay in the 90s, winning a total of 6 masters series and numerous other titles. He of course, won the French Open in 1995.

I have a question though, why is his record at Roland Garros otherwise so underwhelming? Outside of his one title win, he made one other SF and one other QF. From 1991-1994 and 1996-1997, he failed to even make the quarters there.

A lot of other great players on clay during the 1990's: Brugera, Courier, Agassi, Kuerten, Coria, Moya, Kafelnikov. Imagine having to get through those kinds of competitors in the QF, SF, and F each year!
 
Muster is generally overrated on clay. Yes he was great on the surface but that some people called him king of clay or Nadals predecessor is outright ridiculous. He is 0-4 against Edberg on clay. His loss against Rafter at FO 1994 especially was completely unnecessary considering that clay was Rafters worst surface and back in 1994 he hadn’t even won a single ATP Tournament. Musters Record at Roland Gaross is only slightly better than that of Gaudio who is seen as the epitome of a one slam wonder around these boards.
 

tkramer15

Semi-Pro
Muster received very little luck in his draws at Roland Garros over the years. Perhaps one may say "If Muster was so good on clay, why couldn't he overcome other greats who weren't as comfortable on the surface?" It's a fair question. Even though each was more accomplished at the time, one might've expected Muster to get past Becker way back in the 1988 third round or Sampras in the 1991 first round. Still, those aren't exactly cupcake draws, regardless of the surface.

In 1992 and 1993, just when Muster was truly re-establishing himself following the accident and recovery, he was placed in the same small section of the draw with Courier, who was at the apex of his career. In 1994, Muster, as the 11th seed, had the misfortune of having to face a barely unseeded Agassi in the second round. Muster beat him in five sets, but succumbed to serve and volleying 26th ranked Rafter in the next round. On paper, Muster should've beaten a young Rafter, but again, it wasn't the easiest setup for someone ranked just outside the top ten.

The 1996 loss to Stich is the one that stings the most because Muster had won virtually every lead-up tournament just as he had the year prior, and he was a massive favorite to defend his French title. Stich was the perfect foil in the round of 16 though. He was a former slam winner with a big serve and an all around game that could hamper Muster's rhythm. Plus, having dealt with a number of injuries and nearing the end of his career, Stich was playing with almost no pressure. Stich nearly went on to win the entire tournament, losing in three tight sets to Kafelnikov in the championship match.

Muster entered the 1997 French Open in an odd position. He started the year on fire on hard courts, but had bizarrely struggled on clay. Seeded 5th, Muster was not nearly as favored as in the years prior, but the feeling was that he could still find his game and do damage. Unfortunately, after escaping the first two rounds, Muster had the privilege of running into Gustavo Kuerten. For all of Guga's brilliant flowing backhand winners and deft drop shots, Muster had Kuerten on the ropes at 3-0 in the fifth set. Kuerten upped his level and Muster couldn't close it out. Had Muster found a way past Kuerten, perhaps he could've made a serious run at the title. Kuerten's path was difficult on paper, but Muster had handled players like Medvedev, Kafelnikov and Bruguera very well.

1998 was Muster's last real shot at Roland Garros (He played his last tour match at Roland Garros in 1999 before his brief return in 2010-11). He came in ranked 23rd and unseeded after failing to defend most of his points earned early in 1997, but fresh off some decent clay results in the spring of '98. The draw was again not the most favorable on paper in that Muster was forced to open with the 7th seed Jonas Bjorkman. Muster was in far better form, however, and straight setted the Swede before making a nice run to the quarterfinals, where he ran out of steam against rising clay courter Felix Mantilla.

Muster's 32-13 overall Roland Garros record is not much different than Bruguera's for instance (32-10), but Bruguera obviously had several very deep runs to include back to back titles and a runner-up. The seeding of only 16 players at slams back then impacted the draws tremendously. While it's certainly true that you have to beat great players to go deep in or win grand slams, avoiding playing those greats in the first few rounds is clearly helpful. Muster had the misfortune of drawing and losing to the eventual champion or finalist in the fourth round or sooner four times during his prime years. It's easy to state that Muster underachieved at Roland Garros, but you have to actually dig deeper to understand the full story.
 
Muster received very little luck in his draws at Roland Garros over the years. Perhaps one may say "If Muster was so good on clay, why couldn't he overcome other greats who weren't as comfortable on the surface?" It's a fair question. Even though each was more accomplished at the time, one might've expected Muster to get past Becker way back in the 1988 third round or Sampras in the 1991 first round. Still, those aren't exactly cupcake draws, regardless of the surface.

In 1992 and 1993, just when Muster was truly re-establishing himself following the accident and recovery, he was placed in the same small section of the draw with Courier, who was at the apex of his career. In 1994, Muster, as the 11th seed, had the misfortune of having to face a barely unseeded Agassi in the second round. Muster beat him in five sets, but succumbed to serve and volleying 26th ranked Rafter in the next round. On paper, Muster should've beaten a young Rafter, but again, it wasn't the easiest setup for someone ranked just outside the top ten.

The 1996 loss to Stich is the one that stings the most because Muster had won virtually every lead-up tournament just as he had the year prior, and he was a massive favorite to defend his French title. Stich was the perfect foil in the round of 16 though. He was a former slam winner with a big serve and an all around game that could hamper Muster's rhythm. Plus, having dealt with a number of injuries and nearing the end of his career, Stich was playing with almost no pressure. Stich nearly went on to win the entire tournament, losing in three tight sets to Kafelnikov in the championship match.

Muster entered the 1997 French Open in an odd position. He started the year on fire on hard courts, but had bizarrely struggled on clay. Seeded 5th, Muster was not nearly as favored as in the years prior, but the feeling was that he could still find his game and do damage. Unfortunately, after escaping the first two rounds, Muster had the privilege of running into Gustavo Kuerten. For all of Guga's brilliant flowing backhand winners and deft drop shots, Muster had Kuerten on the ropes at 3-0 in the fifth set. Kuerten upped his level and Muster couldn't close it out. Had Muster found a way past Kuerten, perhaps he could've made a serious run at the title. Kuerten's path was difficult on paper, but Muster had handled players like Medvedev, Kafelnikov and Bruguera very well.

1998 was Muster's last real shot at Roland Garros (He played his last tour match at Roland Garros in 1999 before his brief return in 2010-11). He came in ranked 23rd and unseeded after failing to defend most of his points earned early in 1997, but fresh off some decent clay results in the spring of '98. The draw was again not the most favorable on paper in that Muster was forced to open with the 7th seed Jonas Bjorkman. Muster was in far better form, however, and straight setted the Swede before making a nice run to the quarterfinals, where he ran out of steam against rising clay courter Felix Mantilla.

Muster's 32-13 overall Roland Garros record is not much different than Bruguera's for instance (32-10), but Bruguera obviously had several very deep runs to include back to back titles and a runner-up. The seeding of only 16 players at slams back then impacted the draws tremendously. While it's certainly true that you have to beat great players to go deep in or win grand slams, avoiding playing those greats in the first few rounds is clearly helpful. Muster had the misfortune of drawing and losing to the eventual champion or finalist in the fourth round or sooner four times during his prime years. It's easy to state that Muster underachieved at Roland Garros, but you have to actually dig deeper to understand the full story.
This is all true, but from a guy who was labeled king of clay or is still labeled Nadals predecessor in certain circles you would expect that in 14 attempts he would at least a couple of times be able to overcome strong draws. On top he has losses against Becker, Sampras, Rafter (before he even won his first tournament) who with all due respect for their other achievements were not unstoppable forces on clay. Kuerten also had strong draws but he won three titles in fewer attempts.
 

toth

Hall of Fame
Muster had generally a great record on clay in the 90s, winning a total of 6 masters series and numerous other titles. He of course, won the French Open in 1995.

I have a question though, why is his record at Roland Garros otherwise so underwhelming? Outside of his one title win, he made one other SF and one other QF. From 1991-1994 and 1996-1997, he failed to even make the quarters there.
He lost 4 times by serve @ volley player - Sampras, Rafter, Becker, Stich.
He lost 2 times against peak Courier.
 
He lost 4 times by serve @ volley player - Sampras, Rafter, Becker, Stich.
He lost 2 times against peak Courier.
And this is exactly what I do not get sometimes. People defending Musters underwhelming RG resume always come up with his weakness against serve and volley players and try to give him a free pass for this losses. Thing is if his weakness against one of the predominant playing styles of his time was so drastic that he lost on his best surface against people who didn’t really achieve much there, this alone rules out any form of domination. I am inclined to think that even his one win in 95 was partly due to luck that he did not run into an in form S&V Player.
 

tkramer15

Semi-Pro
And this is exactly what I do not get sometimes. People defending Musters underwhelming RG resume always come up with his weakness against serve and volley players and try to give him a free pass for this losses. Thing is if his weakness against one of the predominant playing styles of his time was so drastic that he lost on his best surface against people who didn’t really achieve much there, this alone rules out any form of domination. I am inclined to think that even his one win in 95 was partly due to luck that he did not run into an in form S&V Player.

I am not trying to excuse Muster's weakness. Edberg owned him and others who could take away his rhythm posed problems, although Muster was not as helpless against attacking/big serving players as some lead on. He beat Becker and Stich in epic five setters on clay in the mid-90s. He beat Krajicek in the final of Rome in 1996 and had two wins over Ivanisevic in Grand Slam quarterfinals seven years apart. He famously beat Sampras on indoor carpet in Essen in late 1995 en route to the title there. Muster's record against those top players other than Sampras and Edberg was very respectable.

I absolutely agree that one would've thought, with as adept as he was on clay, Muster would've overcome one of those tough early round draws at the French to reach the latter stages of the tournament or win it more than once. It didn't happen, and I surmise that some fans/journalists knock Muster as overrated for that fact. That's a tough assessment when it comes to a guy who won 24 consecutive clay court finals between 1990 and 1995, compiled a 111-5 record on clay across 1995 and 1996 (including two lengthy winning streaks) and who owns the best finals winning percentage in the history of the men's game. Those are dominant statistics no matter how you slice it. Muster's 1995 French title isn't invalidated by his otherwise relatively tame results there when you dig deeper. He largely dominated the Spanish Armada of top clay courters in that period, including Bruguera.
 
Courier and Bruguera, never mind those crazy people who dare to suggest he was the Nadal of that era (ROTFL) on clay or absurd notions like that
Thing is even Kafelnikov had a better FO record and there would never be anyone naming him in the same sentence as Nadal in terms of clay prowess. Going by his overall resume, he could even be called a fluke winner as he never really backed up his 95 win. If it wasn’t for his runs in 95-96, he would be another Gastón Gaudio and nobody would view him as a great clay courter. However, as mentioned, building his fame on low tier tournaments doesn’t sound really convincing, as the clay masters in the 90s where clearly not in the same level as today.
 
I see even this thread is full of excuses for Muster. While I respect ones right to an opinion we need to stop treating Sampras in 91 or Stich in 96 as tough draws. For a supposed clay giant those should not be tough draws.

Muster badly underperformed at the French. There are no 2 ways around it. I bet he would be the first person to admit it.
 
Thing is even Kafelnikov had a better FO record and there would never be anyone naming him in the same sentence as Nadal in terms of clay prowess. Going by his overall resume, he could even be called a fluke winner as he never really backed up his 95 win. If it wasn’t for his runs in 95-96, he would be another Gastón Gaudio and nobody would view him as a great clay courter. However, as mentioned, building his fame on low tier tournaments doesn’t sound really convincing, as the clay masters in the 90s where clearly not in the same level as today.

I would put Muster above Kafelnikov on clay overall comfortably, but you are right even Kafelnikov performed better at RG. Now Kafelnikov is someone you could legit say suffered from tough draws, losing epics to Kuerten in 3 quarter finals, all of which he choked on some big points and blew chances of winning. Had he won one of those and gone on to win a title I would rate him overall much higher as a player than I do. Anyway back to Muster. Agassi has a MUCH better RG record. I would "probably" rate Muster over Agassi on clay despite that, although honestly for me that is a pretty close call actually, but that is really telling to why how Muster's disappointing RG record detracts from his legacy and puts him IMO as the only at best 3rd best of his era on clay behind Courier and Bruguera.

People say Vilas has a disappointing RG record, and that he does, he is similar to Muster in being so dominant in smallish clay tournaments, and to a minor extent sometimes semi big ones, but falling short a the big ones or when they face the really big guns like Borg or Courier (Borg being far tougher than Courier keep in mind) and even his is far better than Muster's.
 
Exactly.
I see even this thread is full of excuses for Muster. While I respect ones right to an opinion we need to stop treating Sampras in 91 or Stich in 96 as tough draws. For a supposed clay giant those should not be tough draws.

Muster badly underperformed at the French. There are no 2 ways around it. I bet he would be the first person to admit it.
Exactly. In conclusion, he basically lost all matches against the best clay courter if his era Courier and Kuerten which you might consider tough draws (even though Kuerten in 97 wasn’t exactly prime). However, for a supposed clay giant he should have won at least one of those three matches considering some people for some time even called him Nadal’s predecessor (so tough draws shouldn’t even exist). If this wasn’t bad enough he also lost many matches against subpar opposition given the standards to which he is measured here (Sampras 91, Rafter 94, Stich 96, close to retirement Gomes).
 

Whisper

Semi-Pro
Rafa would have struggled to win 4 or 5 FO’s in the 90’s. It was a different time with different conditions, different players. Remember even a clown like Isner had peak Rafa on the ropes at FO in 1st rd. Isner is no clay court master, but he had Rafa on the ropes barely losing in 5 set marathon. Isner led Rafa 2 sets to 1 at FO. Imagine what Sampras woulda done in there match. Rafa is the best and greatest claycourter imo, but he’s lucky to be playing in this era imo. No way would he have won 12+ FO in any other era.
 

timnz

Legend
Muster had generally a great record on clay in the 90s, winning a total of 6 masters series and numerous other titles. He of course, won the French Open in 1995.

I have a question though, why is his record at Roland Garros otherwise so underwhelming? Outside of his one title win, he made one other SF and one other QF. From 1991-1994 and 1996-1997, he failed to even make the quarters there.
Stich could beat anyone on any surface (even Sampras indoors) if he was having an on day. He was the one who bundled muster out of the 1996 French open. Roland Garrod was playing faster than normal that year. It is not a cooincidence that that 1996 was sampras’ best year there.
 
Rafa would have struggled to win 4 or 5 FO’s in the 90’s. It was a different time with different conditions, different players. Remember even a clown like Isner had peak Rafa on the ropes at FO in 1st rd. Isner is no clay court master, but he had Rafa on the ropes barely losing in 5 set marathon. Isner led Rafa 2 sets to 1 at FO. Imagine what Sampras woulda done in there match. Rafa is the best and greatest claycourter imo, but he’s lucky to be playing in this era imo. No way would he have won 12+ FO in any other era.

Yet you are probably one of those who says Federer is the 3rd greatest clay courter ever and is unlucky to have only 1 RG since he plays in the Nadal era on clay. Laughable double standards.

And 2011 was not peak Rafa by a long ways, and considering Sampras has lost in the 1st round of RG many times to players much worse than Isner there is no telling he would do anything even against that days Rafa, not that they would ever be playing in a 1st round.
 

shamaho

Professional
...His knee was pinned between a couple cars and he still made a comeback after it. ....

That sounds a minor thing to come back from... he was run over by a drunk driver, his leg was broken a dozen different pieces and his doctor said to him his tennis days were over....
Not only he came back, he went on to become #1

He was an absolute delight to watch, to me not because of his physical ability and power game but because he just seemed to really enjoy running around hitting balls, it was most impressive, he seemed to yeah of course playing really serious but just having fun and enjoying it all...
 
Exactly.

Exactly. In conclusion, he basically lost all matches against the best clay courter if his era Courier and Kuerten which you might consider tough draws (even though Kuerten in 97 wasn’t exactly prime). However, for a supposed clay giant he should have won at least one of those three matches considering some people for some time even called him Nadal’s predecessor (so tough draws shouldn’t even exist). If this wasn’t bad enough he also lost many matches against subpar opposition given the standards to which he is measured here (Sampras 91, Rafter 94, Stich 96, close to retirement Gomes).

Muster should have beaten Kuerten in 97. Dominant clay courter of the previous 2 years, even if he had a mediocre clay season in 97. Which was shocking after his best early hard court stretch ever, semis in Australia and winning Miami. I figured maybe he was taking the approach he should have taken for years, to save up and peak for RG, which maybe was his plan. Up 3-0 in the 5th set against rookie and then unknown Kuerten. There was really no excuse for losing that. I saw the match too and Muster definitely choked a bit in that 5th set, got very tight and make a big run of errors to lose 6 of the last 7 games. Which is common for Muster, choking at RG, along with the limitations of his game being exposed by the best players he doesn't meet often in the other clay tourneys.
 
Well, above all, we have to take Into account that Roland Garros is not a normal Clay court venue. Especially the big courts are noticeably faster and harder than normal Clay courts. That simply didn t play Into his cards. I think that is the real reason honestly. While He was the best on slow clay courts, in Roland Garros he was still good, but not outstanding. That s why he could only win there when he was in the best shape of his life in 95 .
Secondly, he simply was a massive choker on the big stage.
 
Last edited:

Musterrific

Hall of Fame
Muster should have beaten Kuerten in 97. Dominant clay courter of the previous 2 years, even if he had a mediocre clay season in 97. Which was shocking after his best early hard court stretch ever, semis in Australia and winning Miami. I figured maybe he was taking the approach he should have taken for years, to save up and peak for RG, which maybe was his plan. Up 3-0 in the 5th set against rookie and then unknown Kuerten. There was really no excuse for losing that. I saw the match too and Muster definitely choked a bit in that 5th set, got very tight and make a big run of errors to lose 6 of the last 7 games. Which is common for Muster, choking at RG, along with the limitations of his game being exposed by the best players he doesn't meet often in the other clay tourneys.

That was in the third round, right? Who would he have played if he had beaten Kuerten?
 

tkramer15

Semi-Pro
Well, above all, we have to take Into account that Roland Garros is not a normal Clay court venue. Especially the big courts are noticeably faster and harder than normal Clay courts. That simply didn t play Into his cards. I think that is the real reason honestly. While He was the best on slow clay courts, in Roland Garros he was still good, but not outstanding. That s why he could only win there when he was in the best shape of his life in 95 .
Secondly, he simply was a massive choker on the big stage.

I find it a bit hard to label Muster, owner of the best finals winning percentage of all-time among men, as a "massive choker on the big stage." Yes, some of those finals were in lesser important tournaments, but still. Muster was eight out of 10 in Masters/Super 9 finals and he won the lone Grand Slam final that he reached. Of course one could characterize a few of his Grand Slam failures as "chokes," but the field in the '90s was quite varied and challenging. The injury and subsequent recovery led to Muster peaking much later than some of his contemporaries, thus affording him a relatively short window of opportunity to truly compete for Slam titles.
 

Musterrific

Hall of Fame
Andrei Medvedev next. Bjorkman in the quarters if he got past him, DeWulf in the semis.

Hmmm. Medevedev was a total head-case, so I think he would have beaten him. Bjorkman was essentially a doubles specialist, but had the kind of attacking serve and volley game that could have troubled Muster even on clay, so his run may have ended there anyway. I don't remember details of Dewulf's game as he was just a journeyman, but he did beat Muster on indoor carpet in Vienna (a heartbreaking loss for Muster, who never won his home tournament despite 3 appearances in the final). Who did Kuerten beat in the final that year?
 
Rafa would have struggled to win 4 or 5 FO’s in the 90’s. It was a different time with different conditions, different players. Remember even a clown like Isner had peak Rafa on the ropes at FO in 1st rd. Isner is no clay court master, but he had Rafa on the ropes barely losing in 5 set marathon. Isner led Rafa 2 sets to 1 at FO. Imagine what Sampras woulda done in there match. Rafa is the best and greatest claycourter imo, but he’s lucky to be playing in this era imo. No way would he have won 12+ FO in any other era.

I can imagine it. Nadal would have whipped Sampras the same as he would on any single day in his career playing at the French Open.
 
Hmmm. Medevedev was a total head-case, so I think he would have beaten him. Bjorkman was essentially a doubles specialist, but had the kind of attacking serve and volley game that could have troubled Muster even on clay, so his run may have ended there anyway. I don't remember details of Dewulf's game as he was just a journeyman, but he did beat Muster on indoor carpet in Vienna (a heartbreaking loss for Muster, who never won his home tournament despite 3 appearances in the final). Who did Kuerten beat in the final that year?

Bruguera was the losing finalist to Kuerten. I am 100% sure if Muster reaches that round he has it in the bag. Bruguera was Muster's ultimate beetch, was destroyed by Muster in that years Miami final, and played an awful final vs Kuerten anyway.

I agree Bjorkman would probably be Muster's biggest test if he got past Kuerten, with Medvedev a close 2nd. DeWulf was nervous for the semis and didn't play well, despite getting a set off Kuerten. I am sure Muster would have little problem there. As for DeWulf's game he had a very big forehand when on, and was a pretty good grinding baseline, not much else of note.
 

Thetouch

Professional
Muster relied a 100% on his physical shape and he was a grinder which means everything he achieved he did because of hard work, not because of his talent. There were many clay players who were naturally more gifted and also mentally tougher than him when it mattered the most.

Him losing to S&V players might be odd but if you look deeper then you will realize that Stich was a damn good clay player in general, he could show off his talent and touch on clay even better than on carpet or hard court. Stich wasn't just hitting the ball like he did on fast courts, he transformed into a clay player while remaining his serve and volley shots. Becker wasn't as good as Stich on clay but he still had certain shots that Muster lacked and was a mental giant as well. There is a reason why he did really good at the FO between 1986 and 1991 for being a S&V player but he just didn't care enough to become better, However you just don't beat 2 French Open champions like Muster and Chang straight for no good reason. One could say the same about Sampras.

So in conclusion if you consider all these things and then add all the other clay specialists into the equation then things become more obvious as to why Muster never dominated the FO.
 

Musterrific

Hall of Fame
Bruguera was the losing finalist to Kuerten. I am 100% sure if Muster reaches that round he has it in the bag. Bruguera was Muster's ultimate beetch, was destroyed by Muster in that years Miami final, and played an awful final vs Kuerten anyway.

I agree Bjorkman would probably be Muster's biggest test if he got past Kuerten, with Medvedev a close 2nd. DeWulf was nervous for the semis and didn't play well, despite getting a set off Kuerten. I am sure Muster would have little problem there. As for DeWulf's game he had a very big forehand when on, and was a pretty good grinding baseline, not much else of note.

To use a modern idiom, Muster was the moral champion of the 1997 French Open!
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Big difference between Bo3 and Bo5 format. See Zverev for modern-day reference.

On top of that like Olympians, most tennis players have a relatively short window. And it's crazy to think how Muster's career would have gone if not for that 1989 car crash after he came back 0-2 in the Miami SF.

Muster's window was seemingly 90-98 but his concentration was 95-97. In that 3 year stretch he won the French once and lost to Stich and Kuerten the 2 times he didn't. Earlier he lost twice to Courier. So really not that strange.

It would be more odd if he was far and away the best clay courter for like 7 years and only won the 1 French but he wasn't that. Courier was the superior player and then Muster in a 3 year run where he could have been considered top contender narrowly lost to a 3 time French Open champ and a very good player at his peak in Stich.

It's kinda like asking why Roddick didn't win a Wimbledon.
 
Muster received very little luck in his draws at Roland Garros over the years. Perhaps one may say "If Muster was so good on clay, why couldn't he overcome other greats who weren't as comfortable on the surface?" It's a fair question. Even though each was more accomplished at the time, one might've expected Muster to get past Becker way back in the 1988 third round or Sampras in the 1991 first round. Still, those aren't exactly cupcake draws, regardless of the surface.

In 1992 and 1993, just when Muster was truly re-establishing himself following the accident and recovery, he was placed in the same small section of the draw with Courier, who was at the apex of his career. In 1994, Muster, as the 11th seed, had the misfortune of having to face a barely unseeded Agassi in the second round. Muster beat him in five sets, but succumbed to serve and volleying 26th ranked Rafter in the next round. On paper, Muster should've beaten a young Rafter, but again, it wasn't the easiest setup for someone ranked just outside the top ten.

The 1996 loss to Stich is the one that stings the most because Muster had won virtually every lead-up tournament just as he had the year prior, and he was a massive favorite to defend his French title. Stich was the perfect foil in the round of 16 though. He was a former slam winner with a big serve and an all around game that could hamper Muster's rhythm. Plus, having dealt with a number of injuries and nearing the end of his career, Stich was playing with almost no pressure. Stich nearly went on to win the entire tournament, losing in three tight sets to Kafelnikov in the championship match.

Muster entered the 1997 French Open in an odd position. He started the year on fire on hard courts, but had bizarrely struggled on clay. Seeded 5th, Muster was not nearly as favored as in the years prior, but the feeling was that he could still find his game and do damage. Unfortunately, after escaping the first two rounds, Muster had the privilege of running into Gustavo Kuerten. For all of Guga's brilliant flowing backhand winners and deft drop shots, Muster had Kuerten on the ropes at 3-0 in the fifth set. Kuerten upped his level and Muster couldn't close it out. Had Muster found a way past Kuerten, perhaps he could've made a serious run at the title. Kuerten's path was difficult on paper, but Muster had handled players like Medvedev, Kafelnikov and Bruguera very well.

1998 was Muster's last real shot at Roland Garros (He played his last tour match at Roland Garros in 1999 before his brief return in 2010-11). He came in ranked 23rd and unseeded after failing to defend most of his points earned early in 1997, but fresh off some decent clay results in the spring of '98. The draw was again not the most favorable on paper in that Muster was forced to open with the 7th seed Jonas Bjorkman. Muster was in far better form, however, and straight setted the Swede before making a nice run to the quarterfinals, where he ran out of steam against rising clay courter Felix Mantilla.

Muster's 32-13 overall Roland Garros record is not much different than Bruguera's for instance (32-10), but Bruguera obviously had several very deep runs to include back to back titles and a runner-up. The seeding of only 16 players at slams back then impacted the draws tremendously. While it's certainly true that you have to beat great players to go deep in or win grand slams, avoiding playing those greats in the first few rounds is clearly helpful. Muster had the misfortune of drawing and losing to the eventual champion or finalist in the fourth round or sooner four times during his prime years. It's easy to state that Muster underachieved at Roland Garros, but you have to actually dig deeper to understand the full story.

The devil is in the details. Great write-up.
 

Musterrific

Hall of Fame
French Open 1990 was a real blown opportunity for him since he was back at full strength after the horrible accident a year before. I remember reading that he was arrogantly dismissive of Gomez as someone well past his prime and not to be taken seriously before their match (Gomez famously only entered the draw upon learning that his nemesis Lendl decided not to play the French that year), and then naturally in the semifinal Muster was stunningly made to eat crow for his hubris. If he hadn't underestimated Gomez he likely would have won that match, and I think he would have been the favourite against Agassi in the final. A second French title (or in this case, his first) was on a platter for Muster and he ****ed it up big time through sheer stupidity.

He wouldn't be a factor there again for the next 5 years through a series of early round losses. He's very lucky that he eventually managed to sneak out his 1 lonely slam. He really should have won a few more, so he definitely underachieved in his career.
 
Last edited:

tkramer15

Semi-Pro
French Open 1990 was a real blown opportunity for him since he was back at full strength after the horrible accident a year before.

He wouldn't be a factor there again for the next 5 years through a series of early round losses. He's very lucky that he eventually managed to sneak out his 1 lonely slam. He really should have won a few more, so he definitely underachieved in his career.

In hindsight, the 1990 semifinal was a blown opportunity, but Muster's career path wasn't a normal linear one. He really struggled in 1991 with burnout from all of the furious rehabilitation he underwent to return to the tour so quickly after the 1989 car accident. It is barely mentioned nowadays, but I read somewhere that he underwent two additional knee operations in 1991 and 1992. Muster's ranking plummeted in 1991 and he spent most of that year and 1992 trying to build back up. That's why it's really difficult to gauge what his real opportunities at major success were. Perhaps he would've naturally peaked later anyway. Regardless, Muster's window of top contention was likely shortened by the accident and subsequent rehab/burnout/additional surgeries. He may not have been able to beat Courier anyway in the early '90s, but perhaps he could've been in a better ranking/seeding position and therefore had a better chance at threatening for another deep run or two at Roland Garros in the early '90s.

Big difference between Bo3 and Bo5 format. See Zverev for modern-day reference.

On top of that like Olympians, most tennis players have a relatively short window. And it's crazy to think how Muster's career would have gone if not for that 1989 car crash after he came back 0-2 in the Miami SF.

Muster's window was seemingly 90-98 but his concentration was 95-97. In that 3 year stretch he won the French once and lost to Stich and Kuerten the 2 times he didn't. Earlier he lost twice to Courier. So really not that strange.

It would be more odd if he was far and away the best clay courter for like 7 years and only won the 1 French but he wasn't that. Courier was the superior player and then Muster in a 3 year run where he could have been considered top contender narrowly lost to a 3 time French Open champ and a very good player at his peak in Stich.

It's kinda like asking why Roddick didn't win a Wimbledon.

BGod summarizes it very well. People are so flippant about labeling players as "underachievers" or "overrated" without looking into the details. This would be a different story had Muster not suffered the accident, been a fixture in the top 5-10 for all of those years and been upset by relative unknowns at the French year after year. That's not what happened.
 

Musterrific

Hall of Fame
In hindsight, the 1990 semifinal was a blown opportunity, but Muster's career path wasn't a normal linear one. He really struggled in 1991 with burnout from all of the furious rehabilitation he underwent to return to the tour so quickly after the 1989 car accident. It is barely mentioned nowadays, but I read somewhere that he underwent two additional knee operations in 1991 and 1992. Muster's ranking plummeted in 1991 and he spent most of that year and 1992 trying to build back up. That's why it's really difficult to gauge what his real opportunities at major success were. Perhaps he would've naturally peaked later anyway. Regardless, Muster's window of top contention was likely shortened by the accident and subsequent rehab/burnout/additional surgeries. He may not have been able to beat Courier anyway in the early '90s, but perhaps he could've been in a better ranking/seeding position and therefore had a better chance at threatening for another deep run or two at Roland Garros in the early '90s.



BGod summarizes it very well. People are so flippant about labeling players as "underachievers" or "overrated" without looking into the details. This would be a different story had Muster not suffered the accident, been a fixture in the top 5-10 for all of those years and been upset by relative unknowns at the French year after year. That's not what happened.

Fair enough - I'd never heard that he had further surgeries on his knees, which would explain the dramatic drop-off in form in 1991 and 1992. That solves the mystery that had plagued my thoughts for a long time as to how he could have played so well in 1990, only a year after the horrific accident, and then play so poorly for the next 2 seasons. It should also be noted that unlike Nadal, Muster had a lot more elite clay court specialists during his prime to contend with.

He had far better results in 1993 and 1994 outside of the majors, though nothing to indicate just what a dominant monster he'd become on clay in 1995 and 1996, and then surprisingly his best results on hardcourt in 1997.

The turning point in his career came when he won the Miami masters in 1997. He snagged a big title on hardcourt at the location of the accident 8 years previously, coming full circle and allowing closure through excorcizing those demons. He just never seemed quite as intense or motivated after that glorious victory.
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
French Open 1990 was a real blown opportunity for him since he was back at full strength after the horrible accident a year before. I remember reading that he was arrogantly dismissive of Gomez as someone well past his prime and not to be taken seriously before their match (Gomez famously only entered the draw upon learning that his nemesis Lendl decided not to play the French that year), and then naturally in the semifinal Muster was stunningly made to eat crow for his hubris. If he hadn't underestimated Gomez he likely would have won that match, and I think he would have been the favourite against Agassi in the final. A second French title (or in this case, his first) was on a platter for Muster and he ****ed it up big time through sheer stupidity.

He wouldn't be a factor there again for the next 5 years through a series of early round losses. He's very lucky that he eventually managed to sneak out his 1 lonely slam. He really should have won a few more, so he definitely underachieved in his career.

Gomez and Muster were probably the two best players in the world on clay going into their semi-final at RG in 1990, so that was arguably the de-facto final, as I would have backed Muster to beat Agassi in a hypothetical final. Gomez had won titles in Barcelona and Rome and was a semi-finalist in Rome, while Muster was a finalist in Monte-Carlo and Munich before winning the title in Rome. Chesnokov was also a major title contender going into the tournament having reached the semi-finals the previous year and split victories with Muster in the Monte-Carlo and Rome finals. However he went down in 5 sets to his arch nemesis Leconte (their h2h finished 8-0 to Leconte overall including 7-0 on clay and 3-0 at RG) in the 4th round.

The dynamic of the semi-finals between Gomez and Muster in Rome and Paris that year were very different. Muster narrowly won their Rome semi-final, fighting back from a set down and saving 3 match points before winning the 3rd set tiebreaker. From the reports Gomez made quite a lot of unforced errors and his drop shots were not very effective, so he nearly beat Muster despite apparently not playing that well. Gomez said that he felt that Muster had made a huge mistake in 'showing his hand' in that match. His words were that "This is Rome, not Paris. 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.

In the re-match in Paris Gomez completely dictated proceedings, hitting nearly 50 winners, much more effective drop shots than in Rome, pounding Muster's serve and coming to the net and volleying pretty well. Muster admitted that he just couldn't do anything to hurt Gomez that day. With Gomez playing that well that day, I don't think there was much that the Muster of 1990 (so not the Muster of 1995-1996) could have done to stop him to be honest. At that point in time, I do think that Gomez was probably the better player on clay of the two.
 
Gomez and Muster were probably the two best players in the world on clay going into their semi-final at RG in 1990, so that was arguably the de-facto final, as I would have backed Muster to beat Agassi in a hypothetical final. Gomez had won titles in Barcelona and Rome and was a semi-finalist in Rome, while Muster was a finalist in Monte-Carlo and Munich before winning the title in Rome. Chesnokov was also a major title contender going into the tournament having reached the semi-finals the previous year and split victories with Muster in the Monte-Carlo and Rome finals. However he went down in 5 sets to his arch nemesis Leconte (their h2h finished 8-0 to Leconte overall including 7-0 on clay and 3-0 at RG) in the 4th round.

The dynamic of the semi-finals between Gomez and Muster in Rome and Paris that year were very different. Muster narrowly won their Rome semi-final, fighting back from a set down and saving 3 match points before winning the 3rd set tiebreaker. From the reports Gomez made quite a lot of unforced errors and his drop shots were not very effective, so he nearly beat Muster despite apparently not playing that well. Gomez said that he felt that Muster had made a huge mistake in 'showing his hand' in that match. His words were that "This is Rome, not Paris. 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.

In the re-match in Paris Gomez completely dictated proceedings, hitting nearly 50 winners, much more effective drop shots than in Rome, pounding Muster's serve and coming to the net and volleying pretty well. Muster admitted that he just couldn't do anything to hurt Gomez that day. With Gomez playing that well that day, I don't think there was much that the Muster of 1990 (so not the Muster of 1995-1996) could have done to stop him to be honest. At that point in time, I do think that Gomez was probably the better player on clay of the two.

It really shows how strong Lendl was on clay, and guys like Wilander, and even Borg (not sure if Gomez was yet much of a factor by the end of Borg's career but I am guessing he might have been) to keep Gomez is check and so seemingly irrelevant so long. The guy playing like this arguably past his prime and old, he could have been a monster clay courter without those guys blocking his path constantly.
 
Top