Who's the best player ever on clay?

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
No, it's not Nadal. Not yet, anyway.

Here's a fun fact from SI.com:

• With his victory last week in Monte Carlo, Nadal has now won 42 straight matches on clay. It's the third-longest clay-court winning streak in professional tennis history, behind Guillermo Vilas, who won 53 straight in 1977, and Bjorn Borg, who won 46 straight from '77 to '79.

I wonder where guys like Coria, Gaudio, Ferrero, Kuerten, Muster and Bruguera rank on that list. There was a time a couple of years ago when it seemed like Coria was unbeatable on clay. I guess his loss to Gaudio at the '04 French Open final interrupted his winning streak. And Muster was indisputably the King of Clay back in the mid-90's.
 

hoosierbr

Hall of Fame
Bjorn Borg - no question in my mind. Six French Open titles by 25. Who knows how many more if he had stuck around longer?
 

roundiesee

Hall of Fame
IMHO I feel that Vilas should be the one. In his prime he hardly had any weaknesses on clay, and had one of the most stylish one handed backhands ever. I suppose that's the reason he holds the record for the longest clay streak (ie, pre-Nadal; the way Rafa is going, it seems likely that he'll beat this record)
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
hoosierbr said:
Not in a row but close! Didn't win in '76 or '77.

Did Borg skip the French Open in 1977?

That was the year that Vilas was on fire and won everything, including the French and the US Open, and got to the Australian Open final on GRASS!!!

Was Borg undefeated on clay in '77 because he skipped the French? He likely would have had to play the super hot Vilas that year. (Yes, I know that Borg pretty much owned Vilas during their careers, but that year was when Vilas was at his absolute peak.)
 

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
BreakPoint said:
I wonder where guys like Coria, Gaudio, Ferrero, Kuerten, Muster and Bruguera rank on that list. There was a time a couple of years ago when it seemed like Coria was unbeatable on clay. I guess his loss to Gaudio at the '04 French Open final interrupted his winning streak. And Muster was indisputably the King of Clay back in the mid-90's.

i think coria is not so far on the list, with a claycourt winning streak of 31 (ended by federer in the 2004 final at hambourg)
and muster had a 40 streak (ended by corretja in the 1st round at gstaad in 1995)

Nb: borg just lost to one guy at RG...... twice to panatta in 1973 and 1976 !
http://www.atptennis.com/en/players...jorn&player2=Panatta,+Adriano&playernum2=P059
 

hoosierbr

Hall of Fame
BreakPoint said:
Did Borg skip the French Open in 1977?

That was the year that Vilas was on fire and won everything, including the French and the US Open, and got to the Australian Open final on GRASS!!!

Was Borg undefeated on clay in '77 because he skipped the French? He likely would have had to play the super hot Vilas that year. (Yes, I know that Borg pretty much owned Vilas during their careers, but that year was when Vilas was at his absolute peak.)

Good question. I know he lost to someone, I'll try and find out, in '76. Not sure what happened in '77. Quite possible he didn't play if he was undefeated that year! But don't know for certain. I'll see what I can find out. Maybe I'll call him and ask...anyone have his number?
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
hoosierbr said:
Good question. I know he lost to someone, I'll try and find out, in '76. Not sure what happened in '77. Quite possible he didn't play if he was undefeated that year! But don't know for certain. I'll see what I can find out. Maybe I'll call him and ask...anyone have his number?

Borg lost to Panatta in the QF in '76.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
BTW, as great as Vilas was on clay (as evidenced by him owning the record for the longest winning streak ever on clay), and although he did win the French Open in 1977, did you know that he also lost in the finals of three other French Opens? Twice to Borg ('75 and '78 ) and once to Wilander ('82).
 

urban

Legend
Borg played WTT in 1977, and therefore not RG. Some other quite good clay experts were Cochet, Lacoste, von Cramm, Drobny, Trabert, Rosewall, Pietrangeli, Gimeno and Santana. These older players were more artistic players, with great touch, while the grass and fast courters were seen as mechanical grinders. The triple of Italian, German and French in one year was done only by two men, Hoad in 1956 and Laver in 1962.
 

Grimjack

Banned
Well, Borg, and no doubt about it.

But before you go weighing streaks into it too heavily, consider something.

The way to "make it big" in tennis in the 70's era wasn't the same as it is today. The slams WERE considered the biggest tournaments, but winning the biggest tournaments wasn't necessarily considered the biggest thing -- if financial matters dictated otherwise. Don't get me wrong: these guys knew history would remember the GS champs, but it was often monetarily advisable to be doing something else. Playing for a competing tour; playing an exhibition; etc. So it was routine for a guy to skip out on a grand slam event for some other committment. Or to absolutely tank a match/tournament so he could get to his high-paying exhibition event.

Winning, week-in/week-out on the tour was, frankly, for suckers. You won enough to make sure everybody (the sponsors) knew your name, then you moved on to the money events.

The huge numbers of consecutive clay-court wins and French opens guys like Borg put together were almost by accident. That's not to say the field was weak because EVERYBODY was skipping/tanking. Everybody BUT the top guy was at every event, and fighting like mad to make a name and get on the exhibition rolls.

That Borg so thoroughly dominated that era despite the fact that he acknowledges half-assing it a lot of the time -- and at an era when tennis was at its absolute peak in terms of player pool size and thus overall depth of talent -- is something one really needs to wrap his mind around to truly grasp Borg's dominance.

Borg is already acknowledged as the all-time claycourt master, and did it in the toughest era ever, voluntarily skipping matches on the biggest stages that would have built his legacy even more, and tanking regularly to get to payday quicker. That he ripped off almost 50 wins in a row does not display that he was a "50 win in a row guy." It displays that had he wanted, he could have gone ages without a claycourt loss.

In today's game, where winning every week IS the ticket to riches, streaks are much more important. But alas, can't be compared directly to those of Borg's era without considering context. And Borg's context makes "49" a lot more like "100." He owned the surface and the field in a way no other pro ever has.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
When you say Borg
You've said a lot of things no other player can say
When you say Borg
You've said you know enough to only name the King of Clay
There is no other one
There's only second best
Because the King of Clay
Beats all the rest
When you say Bjorn Borg
You've said it all.

Sung to the tune of the Budweiser theme
 

Shabazza

Legend
Rabbit said:
When you say Borg
You've said a lot of things no other player can say
When you say Borg
You've said you know enough to only name the King of Clay
There is no other one
There's only second best
Because the King of Clay
Beats all the rest
When you say Bjorn Borg
You've said it all.

Sung to the tune of the Budweiser theme
:cool:
 

alfa164164

Professional
Borg or Vilas - Hmmmmmm

Let's see:
Borg holds a 10-3 head to head lead.
On clay Borg lead 5-1 which included the following wood shed beatings:
'75 Roland Garros Final 6-2, 6-3, 6-4
'78 Roland Garros Final 6-1, 6-1, 6-3
'80 Monte Carlo Final 6-1, 6-0, 6-2
'77 Monte Carlo Semi-final 6-2, 6-3
Yes guys, this is a tough choice...............
 

Andres

G.O.A.T.
BreakPoint said:
Was Borg undefeated on clay in '77 because he skipped the French? He likely would have had to play the super hot Vilas that year. (Yes, I know that Borg pretty much owned Vilas during their careers, but that year was when Vilas was at his absolute peak.)
Out of Vilas' 14 losses that year (and 145 wins), 3 of them came in the hand of Borg, and 2 in clay:

1977 Monte Carlo WCT, Clay, S
Monaco Clay S Borg 2 6 3 6

1977 Nice, Clay, F
France Clay F Borg 4 6 6 1 2 6 0 6

http://www.atptennis.com/en/players...?player1=vilas,+guillermo&player2=borg,+bjorn
 

Andres

G.O.A.T.
Vilas was a monster on clay, a beast.
But he coulnd't beat Borg ;)

It's true, he has a longer streak, and more clay titles... but he couldn't beat Borg.

Borg was a Clay God.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Bjorn Borg with his 6 French Opens....but I'm sure Rafael Nadal will surpass that given that he's still only 19...

Wilander won his 1st French at 17 & only ended with 3.
Kuerten won his 1st at 20 & has only 3(doubt he will get another)
French Open champs don't have as much longevity as other slam champs. They are much younger, on average, & decline more quickly.
It will be a major accomplishment for Nadal to get to 4(no one has gotten 4 since Borg)

Borg would probably have at least 8, if he played the French in '77 & didn't suddenly retire in '81.

I think 6 French Opens will be impossible for anyone to ever achieve, considering the physical demands of clay relative to other surfaces.
Borg was probably the fittest player of all time.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Out of Vilas' 14 losses that year (and 145 wins), 3 of them came in the hand of Borg, and 2 in clay:

1977 Monte Carlo WCT, Clay, S
Monaco Clay S Borg 2 6 3 6

1977 Nice, Clay, F
France Clay F Borg 4 6 6 1 2 6 0 6

I'm sure Vilas was glad that Borg sat out the French in '77.
Vilas was a truly great claycourt player who had the misfortune of playing in a time with the greatest claycourter of alltime.
Kinda like Ivanisevic & Becker relative to grass & Sampras.
And maybe Federer vs Nadal on clay.
 

urban

Legend
Has anyone ever seen a match between Borg and Vilas on clay? Better not. It was awful. Both hitting 3 meters over net high, endless rallies, heavy, heavier, heaviest topspin. Was an endurance contest, always 2-3 hours, and in the end, Borg had won in straight. Only one thing was more boring, a match including Harold Solomon. More attractive matchups were, when Borg (or Vilas) had to play offensive players like Panatta or Victor Pecci.
 
Is this a trick question? Nadal all the way. Nadal is the anaconda in a bowl of garden snakes. Have you seen how he treats his fellow clay courters? He breaks them down, get that, he's breaking down these rally-all-day clay courters. Nadal would outmuscle all those guys, except maybe thomas muster, but muster hits too slow and couldn't pass worth a flip.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
except maybe thomas muster, but muster hits too slow and couldn't pass worth a flip.

Was just watching some Muster from '96, he absolutely bludgeons the ball. He broke down so many rally-all-day types. They would just eventually threw in the towel at some point(check out Muster's record vs Bruguera). Muster would love to play quitters like Gaudio & Coria. The match would be over in the warmup.

Too bad espn classic or the tennis channel never show older matches. The are a lot of misconceptions about players that are no longer on tour, that would be cleared up if people got a chance to see(or revisit) again.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Who's the best player ever on clay?

No that this means anything, but has anyone ever won every clay event played on tour in their career? I think Muster might be the closest, the only clay event he hasn't won was Hamburg I believe. He also won all those minor events post French Open.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
urban said:
Has anyone ever seen a match between Borg and Vilas on clay? Better not. It was awful. Both hitting 3 meters over net high, endless rallies, heavy, heavier, heaviest topspin. Was an endurance contest, always 2-3 hours, and in the end, Borg had won in straight. Only one thing was more boring, a match including Harold Solomon. More attractive matchups were, when Borg (or Vilas) had to play offensive players like Panatta or Victor Pecci.

I disagree. I actually used to like to watch those matches and the matches between the serve/volley players and the baseliners. Back then, there were contrasting styles and it made it more enjoyable. Stop and think how impressive it was for Borg to beat Vilas like a drum considering the number of balls each hit during a match. And what made Borg even more impressive was his ability to win on fast grass right after playing 7 2+ hour matches in a row.

Borg was a baseliner on clay and served and vollied on grass.

Today, a grass court match resembles a clay court match. And hardcourts are just like clay and grass. I miss the variety.
 

fastdunn

Legend
Yep. There is this burn out factor.
A few years ago, some poster made a theory that there's maximum
number of times a player can be in gland slam final.
Something like 19. I've heard Ivan Lendle was in gland slam final
19 times or something. Maybe Sampras 17 or 18 times ?

Anyway, whether the theory is right or wrong, playing 2 weeks
in a gland slam takes a lot out of you. You'll be burn out
at any age....



Moose Malloy said:
Wilander won his 1st French at 17 & only ended with 3.
Kuerten won his 1st at 20 & has only 3(doubt he will get another)
French Open champs don't have as much longevity as other slam champs. They are much younger, on average, & decline more quickly.
It will be a major accomplishment for Nadal to get to 4(no one has gotten 4 since Borg)

Borg would probably have at least 8, if he played the French in '77 & didn't suddenly retire in '81.

I think 6 French Opens will be impossible for anyone to ever achieve, considering the physical demands of clay relative to other surfaces.
Borg was probably the fittest player of all time.
 

fastdunn

Legend
Rabbit said:
I disagree. I actually used to like to watch those matches and the matches between the serve/volley players and the baseliners. Back then, there were contrasting styles and it made it more enjoyable. Stop and think how impressive it was for Borg to beat Vilas like a drum considering the number of balls each hit during a match. And what made Borg even more impressive was his ability to win on fast grass right after playing 7 2+ hour matches in a row.

Borg was a baseliner on clay and served and vollied on grass.

Today, a grass court match resembles a clay court match. And hardcourts are just like clay and grass. I miss the variety.


Amen! My sentiment exactly !

ATP's done serious manipulation on the game.
If I were an aspiring S&Ver in ATP tour, I would sue ATP!
 

urban

Legend
I haven't said, that Borg and Vilas were not impressive on clay, quite to the contrary. But maybe they were too perfect with their topspin style, when facing each other. Just the matchup was bad imo. O.K., Vilas had dark long hair under his headband, was a leftie with a sh backand and wore Tachinni (Borg Fila). But they played each other, as if they played a mirror image. Tiriac, then Vilas' guru, said, that Borg did exactly the same, what Vilas did, only just a shade better. He said also, that they trained in their early years too much together. They knew each other too well. Vilas never could overcome this early handicap. If Borg or Vilas faced a contrasting player like Connors, Nastase or the more artistic clay courter Orantes, the matchup became more interesting.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Stop and think how impressive it was for Borg to beat Vilas like a drum considering the number of balls each hit during a match.

I watched the 1978 French Open Final last year. Was a truly amazing performance. Vilas played as well as possible(the guy was just as fit as Borg)
Almost every game was multiple deuces, & Borg still won easily.
He has to the mentally strongest player ever. Every rally was a war(& had amazing gets, Vilas hit some of his famous backhand overheads & Borg got them back) Vilas was the ultimate backboard, but Borg was on another level.
Nothing could faze that guy.
 

!Tym

Hall of Fame
lucky leprechaun said:
Is this a trick question? Nadal all the way. Nadal is the anaconda in a bowl of garden snakes. Have you seen how he treats his fellow clay courters? He breaks them down, get that, he's breaking down these rally-all-day clay courters. Nadal would outmuscle all those guys, except maybe thomas muster, but muster hits too slow and couldn't pass worth a flip.

Muster did NOT hit slow. He was one of the heaviest ball strikers out there. His racket head speed was astonishing, the man BRUTALLY assaulted the ball with topspin, just HURLED his FULL body into EVERY shot.

The guy at his peak pounded heavy topspin off BOTH wings like a machine, did you see his Lipton final? He hit this one running forehand that was just BRUTALLY powerful, I mean it was literally just jaw dropping. As Cliffie said after that crowd gasping shot, "He's not just a defensive player anymore." The guy was a muscle man WITH racket head speed.

Passing wasn't his forte under heavy pressure, but he could definitely hit hard. He got in trouble if a FLAT ball striker like Agassi was on, thus not giving him enough time to take his HUGE cuts.

Heavy topspin didn't bother this guy much. He was so strong in the upper body, so stocky and solidly built, that he just ate them for lunch.

There has never been a guy that I've seen who could just muscle a heavy topspin one-handed backhand the way this guy could. It looked like his shoulder was going to rip out he struck it so violently. Comparing Sampras' backhand stroke to Muster's was like watching a ballerina tip-toe vs. a cave man swinging from vines. The reason Muster left the other one-handed clay-courters in the dust like Emilio Sanchez who used to be neck and neck with him according to his coach Ronnie Leitgeb was that Muster taught himself how to drive the ball with huge topspin. I mean Kuerten hit crazy angled winners, he hit it hard and striking with good topspin, but Muster literally tore the fuzz off the ball. What Bruguera's wester grip tospin forehand was compared to all the winshield wiper wester grip forehands out there was what Muster's one-handed backhand was to all the other one-handed backhands. Costa, Corretja, etc. all nice, beuatiful, topspin one-handed backhands; but no one imparted that extra heaviness/top to the ball on it the way Muster did.

This is why PMac was just awestruck during the Lipton final, saying "I wish people at home could see this live, to see the amazing spin on the ball from Bruguera's high forehands to Muster's backhands and how much strength it takes to hit those balls with a one-handed bachand, INCREDIBLE." And it was and it is. Muster's one-handed topspin component was unparalleled in my opinion. No one handled heavy high topspin to his backhand the way Muster could. For EVERY other one-hander out there, that was something they did not want to deal with, superman himself, Roger Federer included; Muster was the only exception. Others were pretty good at handling that, guys like Costa, Corretja, Kuerten, and Pioline; but Muster that was like his bread and butter he was so strong and his timing was so good. And really I don't know why people think he lacked talent, to hit a one-hander with that kind of racket head speed and be able to still drive those high, heavy balls to his backhand without mishitting hardly shanking ever and making perfectly solid contact time after time, to me that was like the greatest, most underprecciated and unrecognized shot in the game. Who else could handle heavy top to a one-hander like that? People act like the one-hander's such a difficult shot to execute and takes so much talent, yet Muster gets NONE for being the ONLY guy to be able to strike what many consider one of the most difficult if not the most difficult shot in the game, the high and heavy ball to the one-handed backhand, like it was nothing, like it was child's play.
 

!Tym

Hall of Fame
Moose Malloy said:
Was just watching some Muster from '96, he absolutely bludgeons the ball. He broke down so many rally-all-day types. They would just eventually threw in the towel at some point(check out Muster's record vs Bruguera). Muster would love to play quitters like Gaudio & Coria. The match would be over in the warmup.

Too bad espn classic or the tennis channel never show older matches. The are a lot of misconceptions about players that are no longer on tour, that would be cleared up if people got a chance to see(or revisit) again.

Exactly. Bruguera actually slightly outplayed Muster in the Litpon final first set, should have won it, played just about a perfect and brilliant tie-breaker, and all he had to was put away a sitter overhead, but Muster wouldn't give up, he kept on tapping them back anyway he could like his life was on the line, it was Harhuis-Connors all over again, until finally after like three overheads in a row, Bruguera just quits, I mean literally quits, and taps the ball into the bottom of the net on purpose. Muster immediately starts pounding his chest like an enraged ape, I kid you not, and the commentators are going crazy, they can't believe it, "What was Bruguera thinking!!!" Meanwhile, Bruguera's competely hunched over, and concedes the tie-break in the next few seconds flat. After that, he tanks the rest of the match.

The funny thing is, even in bad physical condition like against Sampras at the 96 French, he didn't tank...but against Muster, after having played so brilliantly that week at the Lipton? He just threw it all away, just like that. He said after the match that when asked by Luke Jensen what happened, why'd he just go away, and he said that it was very hot, basically 100 degrees on the court, best of five sets? AND, the most important thing, he said he looked over at the man standing on the other side of the net.

Bruguera was a quiter like Gaudio and Coria too, the difference was that he had more firepower and hit a heavier ball than either of those guys, he covered the court better than Gaudio and at his best as well as Coria; and yet he still was owned by Muster. He said that Muster was by far the guy he hated playing most because he never lost his focus or intensity for even one second, that it was crazy. And that's how he was at his best. He looked like a crazed lunatic, and this QUICKLY weeded out the quitter types like Bruguera who weighed their options of how hard they were going to try. Also, because Bruguera was always up and down in his intensity level within the same match. He was like Pioline in that way, both guys would go through lulls in matches where they looked "he looks like he's dying" lethargic, then suddenly out of nowhere be all pumped like they were dancing with Richard Simmons on the Love Boat. In the Berasategui final, Bruguera got down early in the third, then just DOGGED the rest of it. Then, all of a suddenly out of nowhere, he turns it on, "maybe playing a little possum" as Bud Collins said, before all of a sudden going into hyper mode and just blitzing Berasategui to a 5-0, 6-1 victory.

Against Muster in the Lipton final, he tried the same thing. He acted all Poiline I'm hangdog and dying, then all of a sudden he turns it back on again trying to steal a break at end of the second. He ALMOST does it, BUT he just whiffs on one-forehand he had all set-up to crush...and then just giggles, and Muster close it out, as Bruguera returns to fish tank mode. He did that against Muster, because he couldn't just "turn it on" for a few games or a set here or there and win the way he could even Courier, which says something. In the 93 French final, he out hit and outplayed Courier in the first, but by the time the third rolls around he's in his "he looks like he's dying" mode as Bud Collins would say, and the commentars are going it's all over, Courier's superior fitness has worn him down. Then he comes alive again, on and off, on and off, but then by the time the fifth rolls around he's back in the Pioline my dog just died mode, but then all of a sudden he turns it on again, gets the break back, and thereafter he's "alive and well" to close out the match Rocky style and be the hero...um, err, you could NOT get away with that sort of thing against Muster.

Now Courier was a tough cookie, fit, and all that; but he simply did not have that crazed, deranged psycho feel to him where you felt like EVERY point was going to be a war and there was no cheating or escaping it.

Bruguera once said that "clay court tennis is a war," and yet he was kind of a cheater. He liked the Rocky aspect of it, the idea of it, but when it came down to it, he really didn't have the dig in the trenches ALL the time fortitude of Muster, he was a pretender who talked the talk but did not walk the walk, but in bits and spurts.

I really can't say oh this generation is so much better when I see a guy like Gaudio or Coria basically being the #2 or three guys on clay. To me, these guys have NOTHING over the past kings of clay. Muster at his peak would make them take a wiz in their pants, and teach them who's the teacher and who's the young turk school boy who only thinks he's a real man.
 

urban

Legend
And yet, before 1996, Muster was called by Nikki Pilic, who did some commenting then, a "little guy", compared to the real big guys like Medwedew, Courier or Novacek. I remember, that Muster buckled in the early 90s under the heavy hitting of these guys. In 1996, Muster came up with a new body, and a new backhand cross, by the way.
 

Galactus

Banned
Howcome in a total of 14 appearances at the French Open, Muster only won it once and reached the semi-finals once?
Depth of competition?
 

Eddie Brock

New User
I agree that Muster is the best clay court player. He had the best clay court record in the open era in 95-96, at 111-5. That's pretty darn impressive.
 

Nuke

Hall of Fame
Who else? Well, Chris Evert had a clay-court winning streak that puts all men to shame.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Andres Guazzelli said:
Out of Vilas' 14 losses that year (and 145 wins), 3 of them came in the hand of Borg, and 2 in clay:

1977 Monte Carlo WCT, Clay, S
Monaco Clay S Borg 2 6 3 6

1977 Nice, Clay, F
France Clay F Borg 4 6 6 1 2 6 0 6

http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/headtohead/head2head.asp?player1=vilas%2C+guillermo&player2=borg%2C+bjorn

Wait, if Vilas lost twice to Borg on clay in 1977, how the heck did Vilas still manage to win 53 straight matches on clay in 1977? :confused: How many matches did he play on clay that year anyway? :confused:
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
alfa164164 said:
Let's see:
Borg holds a 10-3 head to head lead.
On clay Borg lead 5-1 which included the following wood shed beatings:
'75 Roland Garros Final 6-2, 6-3, 6-4
'78 Roland Garros Final 6-1, 6-1, 6-3
'80 Monte Carlo Final 6-1, 6-0, 6-2
'77 Monte Carlo Semi-final 6-2, 6-3
Yes guys, this is a tough choice...............

Actually, Borg had a 17-5 total head-to-head record against Vilas.

http://www.atptennis.com/en/players...jorn&player2=Vilas,+Guillermo&playernum2=V028
 

Andres

G.O.A.T.
BreakPoint said:
Wait, if Vilas lost twice to Borg on clay in 1977, how the heck did Vilas still manage to win 53 straight matches on clay in 1977? :confused: How many matches did he play on clay that year anyway? :confused:
He played 159 matches that year. Lost 14.
He won 17 titles, and entered 33.

Two of those losses, were to Borg in clay, and other in hard, I think...
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
And yet, before 1996, Muster was called by Nikki Pilic, who did some commenting then, a "little guy", compared to the real big guys like Medwedew, Courier or Novacek.

Yeah, its funny how small the best clay guys of recent years are(Gaudio, Coria, Ferrer, Davydenko etc)
They look tiny compared to Courier, Medvedev, etc.

Muster came up with a new body, and a new backhand cross, by the way.

do you think his new body came out of a bottle, like Becker said?

Howcome in a total of 14 appearances at the French Open, Muster only won it once and reached the semi-finals once?
Depth of competition?

The French has been a crazy slam since the early 90s. Favorites almost never win. Players come out of nowhere & do well(Dewulf, Berasategui, Kuerten, Mantilla, Arazi, etc) There are/were so many specialists lurking from round one.That's why everyone should not get too excited about a possible Nadal-Fed final at the French, the top players rarely deliver there.

In retrospect, Muster was an underachiever at the French. But he did have some tough losses/draws there over the years. He had to play Courier in '92/'93, when Courier was the huge favorite(probably the best American clay player ever) Muster was as fit as Courier, but not as strong(like urban said)
So he started hitting the weights big time & made his backhand a weapon.
Clay guys always have to be on to get through, its such a grind. If you're off slightly your out. The gap between the best clay players & the best grass/hard players isn't as big, IMO.

Wait, if Vilas lost twice to Borg on clay in 1977, how the heck did Vilas still manage to win 53 straight matches on clay in 1977?

He played a lot, practically every week that year. Remember US Open was on clay that year, so all American as well as European events after Wimbledon were on clay. He also played clay events after US Open. Guy was a machine.

Borg never played that much, he liked to peak for big events(that why he wasn't ranked #1 as much as you would think). ATP was pressuring him to play more in the late 70s. There were signs that he would retire early, he played less & less every year prior to '81 & the tour was upset with him for doing so.
 
Top