I will concede that I didn't really get into tennis until the summer of 1995, but I have followed the pro tour on a weekly basis ever since and have attended numerous tournaments, including Cincinnati every year since 1996. While I can't truly provide a full assessment of the earlier '90s, I feel like I have a very thorough grasp on the second part of the decade. As Moose Malloy accurately described, the 1990s landscape was far different than what we have seen in the past decade plus. The ATP Tour was far more surface specific back then. European or South American clay court specialists found ways to play on clay for the better part of the entire ATP season (even after the U.S. Open). Faster court preferring baseliners, big servers or serve and volleyers (yes, those still existed) tended to streamline their clay seasons into a couple of events before the French Open. Thomas Muster took a lot of flack for skipping Wimbledon almost his entire career, but I recall several other prominent Spanish clay courters doing the same thing on several occasions. The surfaces were viewed far more separately than they are now. There weren't many players who were legitimate consistent threats on all surfaces throughout the year, and thus guys looked to maximize their potential for success by sticking more closely to specific surfaces and tournaments. I'm not saying that this was a good thing for the sport, but it is what the prevailing landscape was.
With that being said, guys like Courier and Agassi certainly performed very well at Roland Garros in the early '90s without prioritizing clay in their scheduling. Does that mean that we can assume that they would've won numerous other tournaments on clay in those years had they bothered to enter? Maybe, but I don't think that's necessarily a fair assumption or that that should be used by anyone to then claim that they were better than Muster or others who did prioritize clay. Muster did win some smaller clay tourneys in the early '90s with weaker draws, but the field of clay court specialists got deeper in the mid '90s with the arrival of players like Moya, Corretja, Albert Costa, Rios and Mantilla who would all become Super 9 (Masters 1000) winners on clay. Bruguera was still around. As was Berasategui. Yevgeny Kafelnikov was a threat on all surfaces, including clay. Muster beat all of those players, some of them numerous times, en route to winning nearly every clay court tournament he entered in 1995 and 1996. Again, I do not mean to trivialize the fact that Courier won two French Opens and very nearly a third. If we are only looking at Roland Garros, then Courier gets the nod over Muster as far as '90s clay court results. Courier handled Muster in both the 1992 and 1993 French Opens when Courier was in the midst of his strongest period. Muster was certainly an established talent at that point, but he had not reached his peak nor is it fair to believe that he had totally found his place in the game following the car accident and knee injury recovery.
While Muster's dominance may have only spanned two clay court seasons, that short lived peak wasn't out of the norm in the 1990s. Did he underachieve at the French in comparison to his other results? Absolutely. But some of that was plain bad luck. Muster had some extremely rough early draws that never would've happened in the more modern 32 seed era -- #1 Courier in the 2nd round in 1992 while ranked 22; Agassi (19th) and then Rafter (26th) in rounds two and three in 1994. The loss to Stich in 1996 was obviously the one that hurt the worst. Stich had a brilliant game plan to attack and not let Muster get into a rhythm. While thought of as a horrific loss for Muster, I maintain that it was simply a very poor draw. Muster did not play well on that day, but Stich was a former Slam finalist with nothing to lose. He went on to nearly win the tournament. As poorly as Muster played on clay in 1997, most in the know still would've given him a pretty good chance to win the French that year had he found a way to get by then unknown Gustavo Kuerten in the third round. Muster squandered a 3-0 lead in the fifth set. Kuerten went on to famously win the tournament (and then two more).
When taking everything into account, I'm not sure how Muster isn't considered the clear best of the 1990s on clay. Yes, he was only truly dominant for two seasons and he won the French just once, but those two campaigns were far greater than anything anyone else put together. He won big tournaments like Monte Carlo and Rome in the early '90s and he beat a whole legion of talented clay court specialists over and over again in 1995 and 1996 en route to record length winning streaks.
Good thread, thanks. But still I can't really get behind this kind of arguments. Beating strong players on the way of winning small tournaments, and losing to X and Y at slams is fully okay when we discuss the career of lesser players. But if you are going to award the titles of best clay player of a full decade, you absolutely can't excuse losing to Pat Rafter, on clay, in 1994! Even if you had to beat Agassi before. Beating Agassi is what the best clay courter does! At that time, Rafter was still waiting for his first title. I can't accept that drawing Rafter at Roland Garros in 1994 is bad luck. It's as lucky as you can be with the seeding system of the time, and for a player who some argue is the best clay courter of the decade.
But I see this comes down to how each of us value winning Roland-Garros versus winning Super 9 and smaller titles, and also how we value a short(ish) peak vs longer prime. So most likely we can't reach a consensus on who was the best. However, if I try to synthesis the opinions until now we have:
1-3) Kuerten, Courier, Muster. The 3 best of the 90's, ith a lot of people who have them in this order, and a lot who have Muster first.
4) Bruguera
5 and lower) Not really discussed yet. I will suggest:
6) Ferrero: Has SF, SF, RU and WIN for his 4 first RG, before injuries and illness stopped his top career. Also won 3 M1000 on clay.
7) Moya: Won RG in the beginning of his career then like Ferrero was derailed by injuries. Also won 2 M1000 on clay. I think both of them could have had much more success on clay had they remained more healthy. Also they were a new generation of clay courters, with better serve and forehand. It allowed them to have success on hard court as well. A bit like Courier was a hardcourter who could have success on clay with his weapons, but the reverse.
8) Agassi. I think Agassi has the least clay-friendly skillset on the whole list, and yet managed to win RG once, and reach two other finals and semi-finals, and win Rome at the end of his career despite having clay super 9 quite low on his priority list.
9) Kafelnikov. Kafelnikov won only 3 clay court tournaments in his career, but here we have a man I can agree was unlucky at Roland Garros: Berasategui in 1994, Muster in 1995, won it in 1996, Kuerten in 1997, Hrbaty in 1999 (went on to reach the SF), Kuerten in 2000 and 2001!
10) Medvedev. Never won RG but lost 6 times against the eventual champion! Also once against runner-up Norman. And won 4 Super 9 on clay.
11) Chang: Infamous 1989 victory with Lendl, Chesnokov and Edberg in the final. An additional final loss to Muster in 1995
12) Costa. 12 titles on clay, including the 2002 RG when he defeated Ferrero in the final. Seized his opportunity to win the thing.
13) Corretja: Twice runner-up to Moya and Kuerten, strong consistent results in super9/m1000 with a Rome title and many finals. I rank him before the next guy because I feel he too could have won the thing if offered so nicely by Coria.
14) Gaudio: You can't really be more a one-slam wonder than that. 8 clay titles, short career, few outstanding matches, and yet a RG title.
15) Coria: I know many will cough to see him that low. El Mago was loved. Gave us the magnificent Rome 2005 final against Nadal, my personnal favorite clay court match. Won 2 masters 1000, and lost 4 finals (Federer, Ferrero, Nadal *2). All of that in very short career cut down by injuries. But so many missed opportunities. RG 2004 against Gaudio, sandwiched between loss to Verkerk in 2003 and Davydenko in 2005...
16) Rios: First to win one of each clay master 1000, but never passed the quarters at RG.
Not ranked: Norman, whose career was terminated after his first extremely promising top season. Also Gomez, whose career spans before the scope of this thread.
Please use this post as a starting point for further discussion on these players. Feel free to add some guys that I left out (Berasategui, Mantilla, Rafter, Rosset...) Do you feel there are severe mistakes? Agassi, Kafelnikov, Coria?
that went on for quite a few years, and nobody else generated that fear - he was only surpassed by Nadal in that respect (maybe Vilas or Borg mut that time I cannot speak for).
