IMO Seles would have gone on to match Graf and even surpassing her slam total had she not been stabbed. Therefore I consider her UNLUCKY <---- THAT IS HYPOTHETICAL!!!!! Geez, it's like you're being deliberately obtuse.
Muster or Federer - Who had a better career on clay
- Thread starter Enigma_87
- Start date
IMO Seles would have gone on to match Graf and even surpassing her slam total had she not been stabbed. Therefore I consider her UNLUCKY <---- THAT IS HYPOTHETICAL!!!!! Geez, it's like you're being deliberately obtuse.
In both cases your tennis records no longer change, do you agree with that?
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Borg's recorded stands to be examined for the time he chose to play. I won't comment on GOAT conversations. They are stupid. And Borg may or may not have ever had another great year. I don't even debate that.
I don't debate any woman as GOAT, same reason. I'm not a Seles fan. I did not like her style of play.
But if you want to call it a "hypothetical" that Seles was cheated out of a couple years of her best tennis, at the least, I would say that this is HIGHLY likely.
For the same reason I would say that it is also highly likely that Muster would have at least had a somewhat better career had he never been hit by a car.
I also think most people would agree with me on both points and have chosen not to weigh in because a troll is being fed by those of us who are patiently answering you.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Honestly, if you don't calm down, the thread could get deleted, and that would be a real shame.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
For the record there is no doubt in my mind at all that Fed is one of the greatest players who has ever lived. If I had to pick a GOAT - which I will not do - he would be at the top of my list.
So I'm hardly trolling when I participate in a thread that suggests that another player may be at least equal to Fed in one small area.
I can even agree that's Fed's clay career easily outshines that of Muster.
The records/stats support it.
But I would say that measuring Fed on clay, picking any two years of his career, against Muster's two magic years on clay, makes me think that Muster's two year peak was more impressive.
ALL of this is hypothetical. If hypothetical discussions stopped in this forum most of what we talk about would not exist.
However, there are some matters that are very highly likely. We can't prove that next August will not be hotter than this January - because it has not taken place yet - but most people would accept this as all but a fact.
That Borg would have had a better career, overall, if he had played longer, is not at all clear. We can surmise that his career stats would have fallen eventually, depending how far past his prime he might have continued. We can also surmise that he would have won SOMETHING, at least some smaller tournaments, so in some way his titles would have increased. But we don't know if that would have happened in a major tournament. So a discussion of a longer career for Borg is simply a lot of guess work, with no extremely likely outcome.
The injury to Muster, on the other hand, makes any reasonable person immediately think that it is highly likely that without that injury he would have had a better career.
The same is even more true about the impact of being stabbed in the back on Seles's career.
I'll leave it at that except to say that I do not understand the connection between loving how a player plays and the need to blindly "protect" that player against all claims that another player may be equally worthy of praise in some area.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
This thread is just about this.
Not what could have been.
Yet , you and others want to give "imagined" slams to Muster. If Fed fans make the statement that Federer would have won 6 FO without Rafa, they would fight saying 'No imaginary slams'.
See the double standard ?
Forgive me for jumping in here, but I just noticed that we have gotten into the subject of match ups. I find this very ironic, all things considered. Very ironic. So Muster has/had a few or more "bad match ups" on clay, yet Federer who has played the ultimate bad match up and would almost certainly have more than 1 RG in any other era, is not being given the courtesy of this "excuse."
Very ironic. Or is it just me?
It's not just you. I noted the same in one of my earlier posts.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Let's stick to the facts, then. Both have 1 French Open title, both have 6 Super 9s on clay, with Muster having 3 Italian Opens and 3 Monte Carlos, and Federer having 4 Hamburgs and 2 Madrids. Beyond this, Muster had a 2 year period of domination on clay at all levels, and won 40 clay titles in total in his career. And contrary to the belief of some people, these tournaments weren't as "mickey mouse" as they are made out to be.
Is that so? So is it your position that there is a dearth of talent on clay now relative to the 90s?
what about 4 other FO finals and 2 SFs for Federer? Are we to ignore that?
let's also award imaginary wimbledons to Olivier Rochus - he didn't choose to stop to grow taller at 5'6; given that he was pwning Federer at the juniors circuit, I'd say its a safe bet that he'd won a few wimbledons if he was 6'0 or taller.
Federer didn't choose to play alongside Nadal on clay... well, you get the drift
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Comments like this are so silly and always make me shake my head.
So player A and player B have both won the same slam once though player A has also reached a few finals as well as a couple of semis but player B has never got past the second week in all the other times he played there. Yet somehow you think they're both equal in that tournament?!
Dearie me
Not really - you drew a comparison with Federer on 5th set stats. Federer has the best record in history in the 5 set format (17 slams). I'm not sure how what you claimed supports muster's preference for the 5-set format.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
In matches that went into a fifth set, is where Muster was better than Federer. My other point is that Muster won 15 tournaments with best of 5 sets finals, and the 1995 French Open with best of 5 sets in every round. Muster didn't lose many tournament finals. On clay, he once won 24 clay finals in a row over 5 years.
And regarding all this talk about the French Open. I've already talked about Muster's underachievement in consistency there, and explained why he lost the matches. I've talked about Gomez being more experienced in 1990, Courier being the reigning champion and favourite in 1992 and 1993, and Muster struggling more with the serve and volley style from opponents than any other style. None of this is a secret. Must we continually go over the same point?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Comments like this are so silly and always make me shake my head.
So player A and player B have both won the same slam once though player A has also reached a few finals as well as a couple of semis but player B has never got past the second week in all the other times he played there. Yet somehow you think they're both equal in that tournament?!
Dearie me
Whoever Player B is, it isn't Muster.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I never said it was but you know what I mean. 1 title + 4 F + 2 SF >> 1 title + 1 SF and not much else.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I've explained countless times why I think Muster had a better career than Federer on clay. First and foremost, titles matter, and so does dominance on the surface. Muster had a 2 year period when not only was he the best player in the world on clay, but was up there with the most dominant players on clay ever. When was Federer ever considered the best player in the world on clay? The only possible time could have been after 2004 Hamburg, when Federer was the world number 1, the reigning champion Wimbledon and the Australian Open, and had just ended Coria's 31 match unbeaten streak on clay, so the feeling was that Federer was now number 1 on all surfaces. That feeling was soon shattered when Kuerten rolled back the years during their match at the 2004 French Open.
Going back to Muster's first serious rise up the world rankings in the 9 months before the accident in Miami, I've explained the trajectory of Muster's career, why he played on clay so much, and how it's obviously been a very different kind of career from Federer's consistency over a long period of time. I've talked about how, before 1995, Muster was a very good player on clay, but far from an all-time great on clay at that time. It was 1995 and 1996 that made Muster an all-time great on clay.
All this has been mentioned so often. Yet all I keep hearing from Federer fans is stats about his consistency over a long period of time.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
I was just saying you can not compare Borg retiring at 26 with Muster being seriously injured at 21 (and injury had nothing to do with him playing tennis it was just terrible bad luck / Borg retiring was his own decision, anything but bad luck)
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
@Mustard: Why wouldn't Fed fans talk about his great consistency on clay? 
That's one of the most important metrics when discussing which player is greater than another!
That's one of the most important metrics when discussing which player is greater than another!
Mustard
Bionic Poster
@Mustard: Why wouldn't Fed fans talk about his great consistency on clay?
I was referring to the French Open, and the number of very deep runs that Federer has made compared to Muster. Sure, that's a positive for Federer, and as a Muster fan I've explained as best I can as to why Muster didn't match that kind of consistency at the French Open. At the same time, titles and dominance on clay is surely the most important thing when judging their careers on clay?
One thing we perhaps haven't mentioned is the 16 or 32 seeds factor. Muster played in French Open draws with 16 seeds, which was worse for players ranked 1-16 compared to today, and even worse still for players ranked 17-32 compared to today.
abmk
Bionic Poster
and at the bold part, apparently you missed my post ...here again
federer's peak on clay > muster's on clay
(yes, matches like Hamburg 02 final vs safin, hamburg 2004 SF vs hewitt, rome 2006 final vs nadal, the last 2 sets of hamburg 2007 vs nadal, RG 2009 F vs soderling, RG 2011 SF vs djokovic etc. etc. )
all greater than any performances of Muster on clay ....
federer at RG >> muster at RG
federer's peak on clay > muster's on clay
federer's achievements in masters only slightly lesser than muster's , but that's because of nadal, else he has more finals in CC masters than Muster did and there is no frggin' way muster would've stopped federer in rome 2006 final form for instance
the only thing muster has is his higher no of titles and that 'aura' in 95-96, which still didn't help him when he faced stich
His other RG performances far drown out these advantages .... that's the reality ....
abmk
Bionic Poster
its not just a matter of "consistency" ...as in comparing a tsonga vs ferrer .... ferrer is more consistent than tsonga, but tsonga having the clearly higher peak play
federer displayed sustained high level at RG and on clay , something muster didn't ..........important thing is sustained high level ....
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Greater in what way? Muster is more like Nadal, a hard worker. They both make tennis look hard, and Muster even more so. Federer makes tennis look easy.
Federer has got no Italian Opens and no Monte Carlos. Not a good stat considering how prestigious these tournaments are.
More hypotheticals at the end, there. In Muster's time of dominating on clay, players weren't playing with poly strings like they were in the 2006 Italian Open final. That changes the whole dynamics of any tennis match, because even though gut strings have power, they don't have as much topspin as poly strings with any given shot, so errors were higher.
1995-1996 was Muster as an all-time great on clay, dominating on the surface like very few men have. Yet at the same time, he had to fight really hard. He came close to defeat a lot of times.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Muster at the 1995 French Open was pretty dominant. He destroyed Pioline, C. Costa, Medvedev and Kafelnikov with ease. After a slow start against Chang, going down 1-4 and 0-40, he came storming back and won 7-5, 6-2, 6-4. The only player who really pushed him and worried him, was A. Costa, in the quarter finals, the first of a trilogy of 5-set matches between those two in 1995-1996. A. Costa had beaten Courier in the previous round.
At this point, Muster hadn't lost a match on clay during the year, was 35-0 by the end of the 1995 French Open. He had saved 5 MPs against him during those 35 matches.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I meant better in terms of peak play ....it doesn't have to do with whether a player makes it look hard or easy ... neither nadal nor borg make it look easy on clay ...it doesn't take a genius to say their clay peaks are the highest .....
oh jeez and conveniently skipping that he has 4 finals at monte carlo and 3 at Rome -- the same as Muster ....being stopped by nadal on the majority of the occasions ...guess what ? nadal is much tougher to face than albert costa or boris becker or chesnokov ....
oh and 6 titles at hamburg/madrid + 1 more final at hamburg ...what about muster ?
dude, in this case, it doesn't frickin' matter .... he took nadal who is quite clearly better than muster on clay to the brink and with brilliant net play to the boot .... nadal who is much better passer than muster didn't put that much of a dent on his net stats that day, though he was passing well ....
if you want to say that nadal who served at 80+% and was playing darn well is lesser than a peak Muster, be my guest !!
Like I said, this would be acceptable if he had taken 96 RG .... a peak with taking the biggest prize of them all atleast once more than a quite clearly more consistently high level performing federer ...
as it happens , he didn't .....
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
when I said sustained high level with respect to federer, I think it was quite obvious that I meant over the years .... not within a single year or that muster's peak play on clay in 95-96 wasn't very good .....
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Not the biased card again. Everybody is biased. I'm amused that anyone continues to claim "impartiality" and "neutrality" when giving out opinions. Yes, I'm a Muster fan.
This has all been answered before. Muster before 1995 was not an all-time great on clay, just a very good clay-court player.
Muster had 2 dominant years on clay. A 111-5 win-loss record on clay, with 18 clay tournaments won, and at all levels (from the French Open, to Super 9s, to Championship series, to World series).
It wasn't just small titles. It was the biggest titles.
When I read a quote like this, I know that you've looked into stats just a little too much, to the extent where all human empathy is lost. Muster played on clay a lot because he was told after the 1989 accident not to play much on hardcourt because it was bad for his knee. Yet from your quote, it all seems to be because Muster saw an opportunity to bump up a career winning percentage.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
The irony is that my two favorite players are Nadal and Fed, as I keep saying. I'm not trying to give anything to Muster. But you want to give 6 FOs to Fed by imagining what if without the existence of Nadal.
Saying that Muster should have had a better career, without being hit by a car, seems a lot more reasonable than saying saying that Fed would have won 6 FOs in an alternate universe without Nadal. And I never claimed that Muster would have won more FOs if he had not been injured.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
My position is that I do not know, and that Nadal's dominance makes it very hard to judge.
NonP
Legend
I see this thread is still going strong. :lol:
I know my words will fall largely on deaf ears around here, but in short, my take is that if you put them on clay in the same era (more or less equalizing for conditions, opponents, etc.) Muster would be better than Fed for about a year or two, but Fed due to his superior consistency would end up with more impressive career stats.
One thing that seems lost on most, and which you can check by perusing the return stats now available on the ATP site (at least since 1991, except for a few missing matches mostly from the DC, Olympics, etc.), is that most elite clay-courters have at least a year or two in which they win over 40% of their return games on the surface. In fact it's almost eerie how this rule seems to hold up after all these years (my guess is that the pre-'91 stats aren't much different). Muster reached that mark in '95, at 42.9%, and just barely in '96 at 40.1%. Fed OTOH never came close, topping out at 35.2% in '05.
Now the Fed camp would point out that this discrepancy is offset by his superior serve, and on first glance they would seem right on the mark, as he usually won 85% of his service games or more on clay, including a whopping 89.6% in '09 (which barely was able to withstand a rather subpar 25.8% of return games won in his successful FO run). By contrast the best Muster could muster up (heh heh, get it) was 83.0% in '93, followed closely by 82.9% in '96.
But there are a few caveats. First of all, it's a myth that today's players are returning better than ever, or at the very least this common wisdom is not supported by the stats, which clearly show, quite on the contrary, that they're holding serve with more ease than perhaps ever. This is due to many factors but most of all to the greater spin allowed by today's more "advanced" racquets, which is reflected in the increases over the years in just about every service stat across the board (1st-serve %, % of serve points and games won, and so on).
Even so, the upticks in service stats have been quite dramatic on clay compared to those on grass and HCs, which have been smaller and more incremental. And this trend still holds true even when you compare the early '00s stats to those from the more recent years. In fact I'm pretty sure this is why, again contrary to popular belief, that the top 10 servers of the '00s actually won a higher % of service games than their '90s predecessors overall, 87.1% vs. 86.0%, and why players won 90% or more of their service games only 7 times in the '90s (the total number of players is 3, with only Sampras achieving the feat more than once), as opposed to a whopping 20 times in the '00s. Take out clay and I suspect that the differences between the two decades would not be so eye-popping.
Now the Fed camp might retort that such increases would bring down Muster's own %s of return games won, and yes they would, but probably not enough to matter much. First of all, as I pointed out earlier on this very thread %s of service games won and of return games won aren't created equal, because a player's decline (or, conversely, his improvement) tends to have nearly twice as much impact on the latter than on the former. And this all makes sense once you consider that players generally win a much higher % of games on their serve than on return. So Fed's superiority on serve is more than offset by Muster's on return.
Perhaps even more importantly, though, you have to consider Muster's style of play, which is that of a genuine clay-court specialist and not a modified HC game usually played by Fed (or Djoko for that matter). That is, greater shot tolerance and patience, and probably a higher average topspin rate (off both wings) generally conducive to clay-court tennis. It's fashionable for the pundits to say today's courts play more or less the same, while conveniently ignoring the documented facts that grass courts still produce by far the highest rates of service holds and clay the least ratios of free points on serve, and that players like Roddick and even Murray have a hell of a hard time on clay while attacking players (relatively speaking) like Fed tend to do well on grass. So it's quite likely that it's not the courts that have "slowed down" today's game (again a myth according to the stats), but that it's the players who don't adjust as much as they should. Another case in point: a clay-courter like Ferrer, despite having fewer weapons than Muster (not to mention other former greats like Bruguera and Ferrero), is able to succeed and finish among the best in return stats on clay (granted Ferru has a great return across all surfaces).
And you can see the same story in Fedal's famous encounters. One thing that sticks out to me after nearly all their FO meetings (and indeed long thereafter) is this insistence on the part of some Fed fans that their guy would've won or at least made the matches competitive had he continued to play his best, without realizing why he has time and again failed to do so and why indeed he has yet to push Rafa to a 5th set. Again that's no accident and due in great part to Rafa's grinding style of play, which is generally favored on clay over HC-style tennis.
Of course Muster is no Nadal, and I'm pretty sure that if they were to switch places Thomas wouldn't be able to match Rafa's otherworldly stats (win-loss %, %s of games won, etc.) in their respective peak year (or two). Still I do think he'd win a similar % of return games and a higher % of service games, again given these facts I just laid out. Having said that, Muster at the same time never quite managed to bulldoze through his opposition at RG like Courier in '92 or Bruguera in '93. (In fact, except for his final with Courier Sergei's game W/L% at the '93 FO would've been up there with anyone's including Borg's and Rafa's, and even with it his % stands at #14 in all of the Open era.) We all like to say our favorite player would win many more majors if not for this player or that circumstance, but the more I study tennis history the more it becomes clear to me that overall competition across the eras remains more or less similar, and it's generally implausible that a one-time Slammer would somehow become a 3-4 time major champion when transported to another era (and taking the place of his counterpart in said era, which generally is ignored in these cross-era comparisons), and vice versa.
All of which is a long-winded way of saying I don't think either Muster or Fed would win many more than 1 FO in any era. But what about their matchup against each other, you say? It's always a bad idea to compare two players by how they'd do against each other, but my picks are Thomas at their respective peak, Fed outside of their primes. In the former scenario Fed would make things interesting by coming to the net often, because as Mustard often points out passing shots were not Muster's strength and Fed would seek to use this weakness of Thomas' to his advantage. But it's one thing to attack the net so relentlessly in a given match, but to do it day after day takes a toll on you unless it's your preferred style of play, which isn't the case for Fed. That's the reason why Fed has rarely been able to reproduce his form in his '06 Rome against Rafa, and over a series of say 10 matches or more I suspect the percentages would gradually shift in Muster's favor. Outside of his '95 or perhaps '96 form, though, Muster would not have the overwhelming advantage on return over Fed, so in this case I do think Fed would be able to prevail more often than not. I suspect their results against the rest of the field would follow a similar arc: favoring Muster at his best, Fed over the rest of their careers. The irony prompted by looking at Muster's title haul is that his detractors tend to focus on his MM events, while his truly great run in '95-'96 tends to be shortchanged--the very opposite of the facile implications of his output.
So who is better? (Which really is the main question, not the disingenuous/misguided one posed by the OP.) I really don't see the point of trying to rank these two, because one can make a case either way. If pushed I'd rank them about equal, though I'm sure that's not going to deter most of you from bickering over the tiniest perceived slights and misconceptions and pleading for your guy. Carry on.
I know my words will fall largely on deaf ears around here, but in short, my take is that if you put them on clay in the same era (more or less equalizing for conditions, opponents, etc.) Muster would be better than Fed for about a year or two, but Fed due to his superior consistency would end up with more impressive career stats.
One thing that seems lost on most, and which you can check by perusing the return stats now available on the ATP site (at least since 1991, except for a few missing matches mostly from the DC, Olympics, etc.), is that most elite clay-courters have at least a year or two in which they win over 40% of their return games on the surface. In fact it's almost eerie how this rule seems to hold up after all these years (my guess is that the pre-'91 stats aren't much different). Muster reached that mark in '95, at 42.9%, and just barely in '96 at 40.1%. Fed OTOH never came close, topping out at 35.2% in '05.
Now the Fed camp would point out that this discrepancy is offset by his superior serve, and on first glance they would seem right on the mark, as he usually won 85% of his service games or more on clay, including a whopping 89.6% in '09 (which barely was able to withstand a rather subpar 25.8% of return games won in his successful FO run). By contrast the best Muster could muster up (heh heh, get it) was 83.0% in '93, followed closely by 82.9% in '96.
But there are a few caveats. First of all, it's a myth that today's players are returning better than ever, or at the very least this common wisdom is not supported by the stats, which clearly show, quite on the contrary, that they're holding serve with more ease than perhaps ever. This is due to many factors but most of all to the greater spin allowed by today's more "advanced" racquets, which is reflected in the increases over the years in just about every service stat across the board (1st-serve %, % of serve points and games won, and so on).
Even so, the upticks in service stats have been quite dramatic on clay compared to those on grass and HCs, which have been smaller and more incremental. And this trend still holds true even when you compare the early '00s stats to those from the more recent years. In fact I'm pretty sure this is why, again contrary to popular belief, that the top 10 servers of the '00s actually won a higher % of service games than their '90s predecessors overall, 87.1% vs. 86.0%, and why players won 90% or more of their service games only 7 times in the '90s (the total number of players is 3, with only Sampras achieving the feat more than once), as opposed to a whopping 20 times in the '00s. Take out clay and I suspect that the differences between the two decades would not be so eye-popping.
Now the Fed camp might retort that such increases would bring down Muster's own %s of return games won, and yes they would, but probably not enough to matter much. First of all, as I pointed out earlier on this very thread %s of service games won and of return games won aren't created equal, because a player's decline (or, conversely, his improvement) tends to have nearly twice as much impact on the latter than on the former. And this all makes sense once you consider that players generally win a much higher % of games on their serve than on return. So Fed's superiority on serve is more than offset by Muster's on return.
Perhaps even more importantly, though, you have to consider Muster's style of play, which is that of a genuine clay-court specialist and not a modified HC game usually played by Fed (or Djoko for that matter). That is, greater shot tolerance and patience, and probably a higher average topspin rate (off both wings) generally conducive to clay-court tennis. It's fashionable for the pundits to say today's courts play more or less the same, while conveniently ignoring the documented facts that grass courts still produce by far the highest rates of service holds and clay the least ratios of free points on serve, and that players like Roddick and even Murray have a hell of a hard time on clay while attacking players (relatively speaking) like Fed tend to do well on grass. So it's quite likely that it's not the courts that have "slowed down" today's game (again a myth according to the stats), but that it's the players who don't adjust as much as they should. Another case in point: a clay-courter like Ferrer, despite having fewer weapons than Muster (not to mention other former greats like Bruguera and Ferrero), is able to succeed and finish among the best in return stats on clay (granted Ferru has a great return across all surfaces).
And you can see the same story in Fedal's famous encounters. One thing that sticks out to me after nearly all their FO meetings (and indeed long thereafter) is this insistence on the part of some Fed fans that their guy would've won or at least made the matches competitive had he continued to play his best, without realizing why he has time and again failed to do so and why indeed he has yet to push Rafa to a 5th set. Again that's no accident and due in great part to Rafa's grinding style of play, which is generally favored on clay over HC-style tennis.
Of course Muster is no Nadal, and I'm pretty sure that if they were to switch places Thomas wouldn't be able to match Rafa's otherworldly stats (win-loss %, %s of games won, etc.) in their respective peak year (or two). Still I do think he'd win a similar % of return games and a higher % of service games, again given these facts I just laid out. Having said that, Muster at the same time never quite managed to bulldoze through his opposition at RG like Courier in '92 or Bruguera in '93. (In fact, except for his final with Courier Sergei's game W/L% at the '93 FO would've been up there with anyone's including Borg's and Rafa's, and even with it his % stands at #14 in all of the Open era.) We all like to say our favorite player would win many more majors if not for this player or that circumstance, but the more I study tennis history the more it becomes clear to me that overall competition across the eras remains more or less similar, and it's generally implausible that a one-time Slammer would somehow become a 3-4 time major champion when transported to another era (and taking the place of his counterpart in said era, which generally is ignored in these cross-era comparisons), and vice versa.
All of which is a long-winded way of saying I don't think either Muster or Fed would win many more than 1 FO in any era. But what about their matchup against each other, you say? It's always a bad idea to compare two players by how they'd do against each other, but my picks are Thomas at their respective peak, Fed outside of their primes. In the former scenario Fed would make things interesting by coming to the net often, because as Mustard often points out passing shots were not Muster's strength and Fed would seek to use this weakness of Thomas' to his advantage. But it's one thing to attack the net so relentlessly in a given match, but to do it day after day takes a toll on you unless it's your preferred style of play, which isn't the case for Fed. That's the reason why Fed has rarely been able to reproduce his form in his '06 Rome against Rafa, and over a series of say 10 matches or more I suspect the percentages would gradually shift in Muster's favor. Outside of his '95 or perhaps '96 form, though, Muster would not have the overwhelming advantage on return over Fed, so in this case I do think Fed would be able to prevail more often than not. I suspect their results against the rest of the field would follow a similar arc: favoring Muster at his best, Fed over the rest of their careers. The irony prompted by looking at Muster's title haul is that his detractors tend to focus on his MM events, while his truly great run in '95-'96 tends to be shortchanged--the very opposite of the facile implications of his output.
So who is better? (Which really is the main question, not the disingenuous/misguided one posed by the OP.) I really don't see the point of trying to rank these two, because one can make a case either way. If pushed I'd rank them about equal, though I'm sure that's not going to deter most of you from bickering over the tiniest perceived slights and misconceptions and pleading for your guy. Carry on.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I agree that % of service games won has gone up. And I agree that spin is the reason, or is the most likely reason.
But the best players in the world are holding steady in % of return games won. This is producing an astonishing % of ALL games played.
Nadal and Novak are the outliers.
Examples: Novak in 2011 was 86/39 surfaces. That's 125/2 or winning 62.5% of all games that year.
In 2006 Fed was 90/32 122 for the year, 61%.
Agassi was 88/34 122 in 1999, serving slightly weaker but returning a bit better. But compare with Novak, who was returning at 39% for the year.
That kind of year was very rare in the 1990s for any player.
Here is a kind of hall of fame for clay, for careers:
Nadal: Clay: 85/43 128
Djokovic: Clay: 81/36 117
Muster: Clay: 79/37 116
Coria: Clay: 74/40 114
Agassi: Clay: 78/35 113
Courier: Clay: 82/31 113
Federer: Clay: 84/28 112
Ferrer: Clay: 76/36 112
Bruguera: Clay: 76/36 112
Ferrero :Clay: 78/34 112
Edberg: Clay: 79/32 111
Gustafsson: Clay: 74/35 111
Kuerten: Clay: 80/30 110
Anyone who is at 55% or higher (110) is in a very rare place. Note how far Nadal leads everyone else we have stats for.
abmk
Bionic Poster
NonP,
I'd disagree on several of those points.
1. A certain Gustavo Kuerten never had 40% of return games won ... maxed out at 34% in his peak years.
2. I absolutely disagree that a 1-slammer in one era could not be 3-4 in another. 5-6 is a big stretch and implausible , but 3, maybe 4, I'd say possible ...
3. Regarding rafa and fed, people talk about rafa's FH to fed's BH all the time, but what many, if not most , miss out is that fed's slice BH to rafa's FH doesn't work ... no one else has handled fed's slice that well ...rafa just handles it too well ...agassi is probably the only once who comes close in that regard in the past 20 years at least as far as punishing slices go ...
all in all, I just don't see anyone grinding away federer at top flight except for rafa and borg on clay .....same for a certain gustavo kuerten ( I rate kuerten over fed on clay obviously )
both are great movers on clay and can play real aggressive, while still not missing and have very good serves ....
I'd disagree on several of those points.
1. A certain Gustavo Kuerten never had 40% of return games won ... maxed out at 34% in his peak years.
2. I absolutely disagree that a 1-slammer in one era could not be 3-4 in another. 5-6 is a big stretch and implausible , but 3, maybe 4, I'd say possible ...
3. Regarding rafa and fed, people talk about rafa's FH to fed's BH all the time, but what many, if not most , miss out is that fed's slice BH to rafa's FH doesn't work ... no one else has handled fed's slice that well ...rafa just handles it too well ...agassi is probably the only once who comes close in that regard in the past 20 years at least as far as punishing slices go ...
all in all, I just don't see anyone grinding away federer at top flight except for rafa and borg on clay .....same for a certain gustavo kuerten ( I rate kuerten over fed on clay obviously )
both are great movers on clay and can play real aggressive, while still not missing and have very good serves ....
NonP
Legend
That's why I said Muster's % of return games won wouldn't have changed all that much, and if anything I suspect that it might well have gone up. As I've pointed out today's players on the whole play a rather similar HC game, if slightly modified for other surfaces, so it's no wonder that the best players would do well against their opposition because they tend to be the best at what everyone does. Put them in any of the previous eras and they'd need to modify their game more against all sorts of specialists that were more legion back then, and their %s of games won would probably suffer accordingly, if not by much.
But again that does NOT necessarily mean that today's surfaces are homogenized to the extent where there are no meaningful differences between them, and I think the surface-specific discrepancy of results for guys like Roddick and Murray quite thoroughly debunks that talking point. Which in turn means that there are still potential advantages for surface specialists, which I think is reflected in the achievements of clay-courters like Ferrer and of course Nadal (though I wouldn't drive home this point too much because there are so few of 'em out there now), and which again I think would benefit Muster and offset whatever losses on return he would incur due to players holding serve more often today.
Nice of you to take notice, BTW. You have no idea how often I have to point this out (I'd seriously be willing to pay a small fortune not to hear about the surface slowdown/homogenization nonsense ever again), but like I said it usually falls on deaf ears. If you're interested this post of mine has a few links to other in-depth posts I've written on this topic:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=6850233#post6850233
In fact the whole "Greatest Serves of All Time" thread is worth a look. And I really don't say that just because it's one I started myself.
For the record these numbers aren't completely accurate because stats from the DC, the Olympics, the former Grand Slam and World Team Cups and even a few '90s GS matches and the last games of a few '90s Slam 5-setters (those that went further than 6-6 in the deciding set) are missing. But yes, these are more or less complete pictures and it's no wonder that they confirm Rafa as the undisputed king of clay of the past 25 years.
NonP
Legend
I was actually gonna talk about Kuerten but forgot. Guga was certainly more up and down, but he's a rare breed that somehow made offensive tennis work on clay. A clay-court Sampras/Becker if you will. Yes, there are times when he had to come back from MPs down against virtual nobodies like Russell, but on the other hand he had these spells where he could make the likes of Bruguera, Ferrero, Fed and Corretja look like amateurs by comparison. You get the sense that once he got hot it didn't matter who was on the other side of the net. (In fact I think the reason why Fed lost so badly to Guga at the '04 FO, other than his not-so-great serving, is because he wasn't expecting anyone to hit DTL BH winners so effortlessly on clay.) And once he got to the major SFs and finals he was hot more often than not (another Sampras analogy here).
So he's really an exception to the rule, since there have been few quite like him. Let me put it this way. If you were to pit him against the other 3-timers like Lendl and Wilander in a regular H2H series as in the old pro days I wouldn't be surprised to see him finish dead last. But if we were talking about potential FO SF/final matchups I'd definitely feel more comfortable putting money on Guga. His average level may not be the highest, but his peak level I think is up there with anyone's in history, or at least in the Open era.
I can buy 2, maybe even 3. But 4 is really a big stretch to me. Remember, we're talking about guys that won only 1 major on the specific surface for their entire careers, not 6+ like a Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, etc. Once you get to 3-4 we're talking about guys like Becker, Guga, Mac, etc., the all-time greats just below the demigods, and I don't think their titles at their best Slams are flukes.
I agree Rafa handles slices quite well, and in fact have made the same point in this lengthy post I once wrote about the Fedal matchup. And he's by far the best clay-courter I've seen in my years of following tennis, and I'd pick him to win any clay-court matchup against just about everyone else, though I suspect Guga in full flight (which he normally would be in FO finals, where he'd presumably meet Rafa) would play him closer than most people think.
Still the fact that Rafa is such a unique talent doesn't mean grinding tennis is so easy to overcome on clay. I know this isn't ground-breaking insight on my part, but clay-court tennis is almost a different game where patience and shot tolerance are rewarded more often than not, and Fed while plenty patient himself would eventually grow frustrated against the constant grinding of, say, Lendl, Bruguera and yes even Muster (again at his very peak). There certainly would be times when Fed would get the balance just right between attacking and defending, as he did not only in the '06 Rome final but also in the '09 Madrid final and the '11 FO SF (though these guys' slower pace of play and higher topspin rate would make it harder for Fed to get into such rhythm in the first place), and in those instances he'd be hard to beat for anyone. But the fact that they're playing on clay would make those instances relatively rare, which is why I said that over time the percentages would shift in favor of the clay-courter. Again it's one thing to play such smart aggressive tennis in a given match, but quite another to produce it day in and day out unless you're a full-time net rusher/attacker like Panatta, Noah or even Edberg. And the brand of successful attacking tennis on clay takes years to learn (I'm sure you already know that simple S&V is generally a losing strategy on clay) and wouldn't occur instinctively to even an exceptional talent like Fed. Guga was really an outlier in that he didn't come to the net as much but his unique physiology and biomechanics (flexible lanky frame but surprisingly nimble foot, heavy topspin, big serve) allowed him to play the kind of offensive tennis that wouldn't work for anyone else.
But if you still disagree that's fine, I'm not talking about a 8-2 beatdown here. In fact I've said that prime Fed might well be able to take 2 matches away from prime Rafa, so I'd expect him to do better against guys like Lendl, Bruguera and (peak) Muster. I think that's fair, though I'm sure certain others won't feel the same way. :twisted:
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
He didn't mention Kuerten, did he?. Muster had 43% of all return games in 1995.
Nadal has 43% of return games on clay, for his career.
Coria had a career record of 40% of return games on clay.
In 2008 Nadal had 51% of return games on clay for the whole year.
Similar threads
- Poll
