Stich is big underachiever with only 1 major

#1
He is a super talented player, can play well on all surfaces, and has a winning head to head with Sampras (the pre eminent player of his era). He should have won atleast 3 majors IMO. And the funny thing is he was even a bit lucky to win the 1 he did, I recall his semi with Edberg he was behind in almost every stat, and didnt break serve once, but won the big points to win.

He was too weak mentally and was too much jack of all trades, master of one. He did everything well other than his lack of consistency, but never parlayed it into a specific game plan or style that worked for him.
 
#2
Who was the better player out of Goran ivanisevic, Richard Krajicek or Michael Stich? Is a good question. All amazing grass players and all had amazing skills. In this era they would have won more than one slam. I’m going for Krajicek. Massive game!
 
#3
Who was the better player out of Goran ivanisevic, Richard Krajicek or Michael Stich? Is a good question. All amazing grass players and all had amazing skills. In this era they would have won more than one slam. I’m going for Krajicek. Massive game!
Stich was by far the most talented one of the three. Kraijcek was bit of a servebot, even though he did have game. He was too slow and his backhand lacked variation.
 
#6
Stich was by far the most talented one of the three. Kraijcek was bit of a servebot, even though he did have game. He was too slow and his backhand lacked variation.
His backhand lacked variation!!!!!!!!!!
His backhand was unbelievable and probably the best single hander on tour for years.
It was a text book stroke
 
#9
Stich was probably the most talented player of the 1990s, but lacked the absolute will to win. He was satisfied with his Wim win, and never had the eagerness to train ultra hard. Nor had he that "go for broke" mentality of his rival Becker, in whose shadow he always lived in Germany. He came to tennis pretty late, i think with 13 or 14 years, before he was a talented soccer player, and remained somewhat of an amateur in his heart. Along with strong serve, which reminded some on Stan Smith, and his effortless volleys, his backhand was the best in those days. His forehand remained pretty weak, until Pilic worked with him in the 1996 season, when he came back from an injury. Pilic's coaching did his game very well. Stich could beat peak Muster at RG on clay, and peak Sampras on ultra fast hard courts. His 4 set Masters win 1993 over Sampras was called by experts like Lew Hoad as one of the best matches all time. I have seen Davis Cup matches, where he really toyed with Krajicek's serve.
 
#10
Stich vs Krajicek is an interesting debate. Both players with immense potential who only showed flashes of the brilliance they were capable of.
 

andreh

Professional
#11
He probably sleeps okay at night, though. I'd be very happy with beating the no.1 and no. 2 player in the world at SW19 in 1991 back to back - and also these two players being the winners of the last 6 years except 1987. Tremendous effort.

Beautiful tennis too:
 
#14
Who was the better player out of Goran ivanisevic, Richard Krajicek or Michael Stich? Is a good question. All amazing grass players and all had amazing skills. In this era they would have won more than one slam. I’m going for Krajicek. Massive game!
Goran the best athlete of the 3 and best mover. Stich the slowest, but most technically skilled.
 
#18
Krajicek, Ivanisevic, and Stich are all very talented, and all 3 are underachievers. It would have been nice to see any of that trio achieve more, ideally all of them, but atleast 1 of them. Of course it would be very hard with all of them, as there are only so many slams to go around, and all 3 of those being more consistent would lead to a super tough era now.

I still think of the trio Stich has the most balanced and complete game. Ivanisevic was obviously serve heavy with one of the GOAT serves, although other aspects of his game are underrated. Krajicek had a weaker return of serve except when he played Sampras who he somehow returned a lot better against than he did almost anyone else, and his movement was suspect.

Krajicek should have won another Wimbledon, maybe in 98 when he looked to have Ivanisevic beaten in the semis after coming back in the 4th set, but blew it, and maybe a hard court slam. Ivanisevic should for sure have won more than 1 Wimbledon, maybe several, missing chances in 92, 94, 95, 98; and missed a good shot at a hard court slam at the 96 U.S Open. Stich could potentially have won on any surface, played poorly in a winnable match in the 96 French Open final, got stuck with probably his worst match up in the 94 U.S Open final and played a mediocre finals match on top of that, and many other times he had a potential run or potential draw to make a run he lost in upsets early in the draw.
 
#19
I have, and his backhand was not a major weapon. Most of the time he sliced it, sometimes he could hit a nice shot down the line with topspin. But it looked a bit stiff and was clearly his weakest shot. His forehand was deadly, though.
On the other hand, Krajicek had a big forehand (biggest among Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic imo). Meanwhile, Stich forehand was kind weak.
 
#20
On the other hand, Krajicek had a big forehand (biggest among Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic imo). Meanwhile, Stich forehand was kind weak.
I wouldnt say weak, but I agree it was probably not one of the best considering how forehand heavy the game is. I agree the forehand probably went Krajicek > Ivanisevic > Stich, although I think for all 3 it could be a weapon for sure. Backhand definitely went Stich > Ivanisevic >> Krajicek though. Krajicek could have a strong backhand when he had time to really set up, I saw him hit some beautiful up the line winners, but rush him or force him on the run at all and...
 
#21
By the end of 1996, I really expected Krajicek to win another Slam and become a major slam contender in Wimbledon and USO (I mean, similar to Pat Rafter), and Ivanisevic to win a Wimbledon. Instead it was Patrick Rafter, who emerged dramatically and kinda unexpectedly in mid-1997 (his rise was even more dramatic than Stan IMO). On the other hand, Krajicek never reached another Slam final, while Ivanisevic managed to win one when most people basically wrote him off.
 
#22
The early 90s were so stacked with many talented players while the courts were so diverse, that you just couldn't really call most outcomes of the tournaments prior. Styles and personalites were clashing each week around the world. Stich, this might sound silly, but he got married too soon and therefore he didn't put much work in his career. He was like only 22 when he got married. Now imagine being married to a 22 year old actress who wants to enjoy life.

Stich could have won more majors between 1991 and 1995 had he put more physical effort and work on his mental strength but he was lazy to say the least. But then again facing the likes of Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Chang, Medwedev, Agassi Berasategui, Gustafsson or Kafelnikov at the French on clay is hard enough anyway. Same thing for Melbourne, you got guys like Lendl, Edberg and Courier who did well there all the time due to the slower hard court conditions and then add Becker, Agassi and Sampras (maybe Chang and Krajicek too) in the mix and you got a field that's very strong already. Or as for the US Open you reverse the roles and put Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Courier as serious contenders while adding and Becker, Krajicek, Chang, Ivanisevic and Lendl to the equation.

Ironically the toughest and most stacked Slam, as far as competitors goes, was the place where Stich had his most success: Wimbledon. His main rivals used to be hard hitting serve and volley players, just like he was and even guys like Lendl or former champs like Mac still gave it their all when playing there, with decent results. Agassi played better and more focused in Wimbledon at times as he did in the FO or even the US. Ivanisevic was becoming a force on grass, Courier did really well between 1991 and 1993 and even Tod Marting had solid results then. Edberg was naturally the better grass player, while Sampras and Becker were just too hungry for WB and hard to beat, except for that one time.
 
#23
@helterskelter, this seems a perfect thread for you as I know you were a big fan of that era and a lot of players (eg- Edberg, Moya, Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Kafelnikov) in that era, even if not so much Stich himself you would be very familiar with him anyhow.
 
#24
I think Stich had all weapons, but none of them were particularly lethal. His backhand was great, but not enough to handle power baseliners from the backcourt. His serve-and-volley game was solid, but the serve was not big enough to overpower big returners. You can look at his lopsided H2H against top power baseliners like Agassi and Lendl.
 
Top