I would rate Bruguera weakest myself, but not in terms of talent. The guy played on a hard court only ONE time in his whole entire life by the time he turned 18. You don't think that would have something to do with why he was so adverse to playing outside clay? They only put hard courts in Spain for the 92 Olympics facility. Had he not been around, and not had some measure of talent, I don't think guys like Moya and Corretja and Nadal would have had the opportunity they did to simultaneously hybrid their game for hard courts.
In terms of pure talent and athleticism he was without a doubt elite in my opinion. He beat Rafter serving and volleying at Wimbledon before Rafter went downhill. In fact, McEnroe said that was the match that really started him reeling. He did win an Olympic silver medal in his worst season by far (before the injuries and burnout finally got to him). Prior to 93 he had a serious back problem, basically the same one that took Moya from the top during his "slumping" years. He was as Malivai Washington said a guy whose body wouldn't hold up and he was always battling injury.
At the 94 year ending Masters semis, he had Becker teetering on the verge of a straight sets defeat in front of a rabid home town crowd. Had he not got nervous at the end of the second set, Becker himself said he would have beat him, and Becker was NOT playing bad at all. Remember, this was when the indoor courts were LIGHTNING fast as compared to now, and who in the history of tennis has had a wristier forehand? It's one of the most difficult shots to try and emulate from a biomechanical standpoint as there ever was in my opinion. That he could pull that technique off as he did against pro pace is nothing to be sneezed at.
In the 93 year ending championships, he was up 5-love on Sampras and just two points from a 6-0 set. He won the set 6-1, then in the beginning of the third Sampras just bowed down to Bruguera mockingly because he was on such a roll (he had just scored another return at his feet). He lost the match by one break in the third, but it was more because of slight carelessness, that break, it was still a very tight set.
At the end of 94, he was one of the hottest indoor players on the circuit to close that year out. In 93, he also had some very good indoor results.
Again, this is NOT like now, indoor courts back then were ridiculously fast back then.
He played Leconte indoors in one very well played indoor match, when Leconte was bowing down to Bruguera after some amazing flair shots.
He also had very soft hands around net, and very good feel. He toyed with Courier in basically his first or second senior tournament on clay, hitting almost nothing but drop shots and drop volleys. I mean his winning percentage was basiically like 100% when going for these.
He also could rip some of the hardest groundies of anyone when he wanted too. Again, as Mal said, he's always had the ability to end points flat out and go for big shots like that, he just chose not too. He was selective about it. There are not many players in history who could generate his max racket head speed when he decided to let go.
His backahnd return was very good. And overall as Tony Trabert said, when he's on with his backhand, it's one of the best and most versatile in the game. He did not just have the big forehand. No one in history has been able to hit the amount topspin he could on a two-handed backhand when he wanted too. He could hit topspin two-handed moonballs like no one else, yet he could also take it on the rise, hit open stance two-handers, take it on the rise, and also just stroke a clean winner. His backhand pass was unbelievable, because he had pinpoint control but more importantly as Cliff Drysdale said you couldn't read the direction of it, he could hold it till the last second because of the unique cocked wrist take back he had.
Where he was crippled was his forehand return on faster surfaces. Because his technique was so extreme, he had to basically just chip it back. That was a limitation of his technique though and not talent.
There is NO WAY Rafter was more talented than him in my opinion. Rafter could not have been anything but a serve and volleyer in my opinion. Rafter relied on his superior mental tenacity (which Bruguera wasn't) and athleticism at net, but he was NO Stefan Edberg. He did not have any outstanding attributes from the baseline, Bruguera at least had soft hands. He did not have a good stick volley, but at least he had one redeeming innate trate that could have been developed more had he chosen that route or been brought up in Australia say.
Bruguera had he grown up on grass or hard courts in my opinion, could still have been a top serve and volleyer. Rafter on the other hand, would have been able to be a top player only through serve and volley though. Just my opinion.
Bruguera's also the only two-time ATP Comeback Player of the Year, which again speaks to a guy whose body just didn't hold up well. Pure talent though, he was up there. Don't let the assumption that oh a guy uses a western grip, therefore he's not "truly" talented like someone who uses more classical strokes. That's what bugs me so much, ANYONE who uses a full western grip or heavy topspin is almost universally considered to have lesser talent. And I just don't get it, this from someone who was originally sold the gospel of the classical technique bias in my "formative" years. And can now play both styles, at a very high level. It really IS as Robert Landsdorp himself says. The elite clay court guys are every bit as talented as guys like Sampras and Agassi but no one will ever know it, because the extreme techniques they've been taught ruin them at the pro level, in so far as they'll never be able to consistently excel outside clay because of it. Those techniques limit their ability to quickly react against pace, but it is NOT because of lack of talent. It's a limitiation of the *technique*. That is a HUGE distinction, yet the myth that no clay courter is truly talented next to these fabled "all-surface" players persists. As Landsdorp says, you can have more classical techqniue and still adapt to clay, but you can NOT truly adapt to faster surfaces. Three of the four slams, PLUS the year ending championship, PLUS the Lipton back when it was considered the "fifth slam" and big fish, are ALL hard courts or faster. You may say well some hard courts are slower than others, and that maybe, but it's still a hard court. This is why Landsdorp refuses to ever teach the western grip. With an extreme western technique you've only got a chance to be great on one surface and nowhere else, and again it is NOT because of INNATE, natural born talent, either. Think of the coincidences. Guys with more classical technique like Medevedev and Kafelnikov and Lendl and Korda all were fine on clay. And why is that? Because having more time to react (which less extreme technique ALWAYS gives you) is NEVER a disadvantage in tennis. Yet, flip the coin now, and has there EVER in the history of tennis been a TRUE extreme techniquer (which Borg was/is NOT...his technique was NOT that extreme relatively speaking) who was able to become a "legend" type player. Nope, as far as I can recall never. And if there has been, it sure has been exceedingly rare. Again, not just a coincidence. Are you telling me there has NEVER been a truly elite talent extreme techniquer in all this time and with soooo many players having been trained that way growing up? Again, I really don't think so. Again, just go ask Landsdorp if some might think I'm just being biased.
Agassi himself was so impressed with Bruguera's ability when he first saw him, that he flew him to Las Vegas from Spain on his private jet to train with him. He would not have done that for Rafter. Rafter developed a game and mental toughness that was more conducive to a wider pallete of "results" in tennis, but in pure talent, I just don't see it. Give me Edberg, Krajicek, Korda, or Stich any day over him, and yes, also Kafelnikov, Forget, Medvedev, Chang (pound for pound, he's up there with the best ever in my opinion, the guy was 5'6" for goodness sakes), and Bruguera (one of the pound for pound most talented, extreme grippers ever in my opinion) over Rafter any day.
And the thing is I have nothing against Rafter personally. I just never saw him though as being anything much more than a reasonably talented but more so extremely athletic and very hard competiting lunch bucket type. In fact, if he didn't play serve and volley tennis, which is so revered by so many as somehow being indicative of a true talent and form of tennis, I really don't think anyone would see him as much more than a grinder...like, gaps, Thomas Muster. Who is his baseline, extreme gripper, equivalent in my opinion.
And yet, NO ONE ever gives Muster as being talented EVER, as they are more inclined to do with Rafter. Again, NO ONE in the history of tennis has been able to hit a huge topspin moonball one-handed backhand like Muster. People always say how difficult a high ball is for a one-hander. Yet, Muster at 5'11" treated that like nothing. Again, he gets ZERO credit it for though when NO ONE else in history has been able to make such an incredibly difficult shot easy. Again, there's just such a bias. And believe me Muster, was incredibly irritated by that bias and for good reason too...maybe if Muster had Rafter's charming smile, and swash buckling hair, and golden tan, and charismatic eyes...people would think hey maybe what he's doing does take a little more talent than I can imagine or have been lead to believe?
.
So,yeah perhaps Kafelnikov had an easier way to the final but does that make him weaker than all the other players?
