The reason Muster was so angry and ecstatic at the same time when Bruguera and he made the finals of the 97 Lipton was not just because he owned Bruguera, it was because in his own words it proved that claycourters COULD play on hard courts.
Who did Bruguera and Muster beat to get to the finals? Muster thumped Courier and Ivanisivic. Bruguera straight setted Chang, OBLITERATED Medvedev (won only three points in the first set and was up 6-0, 5-0 before letting him win a few games because he was his friend...as PMac said, "Bruguera played unbelievable that match!"), and played an unbelievable match against Sampras ("Bruguera called his bluff" after Samrpas tried to rais his level in the third, Bruguera raised his too and still won).
As for Bruguera winning by way of endurance? Um, how does he stop running for any balls entirely after a single set in the finals of "the fifth grand slam" like the Litpon if his endurance was so great? How does he get dog tired after one set against Courier at the French? How does he tank the third set against Berasategui at the French to save energy for the third if his endurance is so great?
If Bruguera had no ability to play on faster stuff how does he get Becker to say after the semifinals of the 94 year ending championships on his home turf on a lightning fast court that he was "lucky" to have won against Bruguera, that he should have lost in straight sets had Bruguera not missed an "easy" passing shot he "normally" would make? How was it that Bruguera was one of the four hottest indoor players with Becker, Sampras, and Agassi at the end of 94? How was it that the year before, when Korda beat Sampras and Stich in epic matches to win the lightning fast indoor Grand Slam Cup, he barely escaped Bruguera in a super tight three setter in the quarters? How is that Bruguera can play so well for a set indoors that he comes essentially within two points of taking a 6-love set from Sampras at the 93 year ending championships, is playing so well that Sampras actually shakes his head in disbelief then turns around and bows down to him? Sampras barely won that match by a single break in the third, but even that was more because Bruguera played a few loose points and not because Sampras was just clearly overmatching Bruguera.
Bruguera COULD play on faster surfaces, but people seem to forget that prior to 93 he had a serious back condition and that after 94, he was injury riddled for pretty much the rest of his career. The guy dropped to 86 in the world in 96...unless of course you really think that was his "true" level of play.
I don't get why injuries are brought up to explain away Krajicek and Rios' demise, yet not so with Bruguera? The guy was 23 when he played so great at the end of the 94 indoor season. He specifically said he was now going to focus on faster surfaces in the off season as a result. What he couldn't improve too? Sure he could, but what happened? He tore two ligaments in his ankle by slipping on a tennis ball at the end of practice. After that, it was pretty much all downhill from there.
I don't know why Bruguera and Muster are written off as being in the same class as Berasategui on faster surfaces when to my mind it's not a fair comparison. Muster was in the finals of the Lipton as early as 89. He got injured in a BIG way. It took him years and years of grueling physical training for him to reach the top again. He also like Bruguera had a relatively short peak. But Bruguera and Muster did not have the same conditions as others, literally. They actually had LEGITIMATE excuses for having such short peaks.
When Guga and Corretja won the year ending championships, the courts had very visbly been slowed down to play more like slow hard courts. The early to mid 90s indoor courts were an entirely different animal, back then it was said unless you had a big serve or took the ball on the rise like Agassi you had NO chance whatsoever. I mean what happened to Berasategui when he tried the fast indoor stuff at the year ending championships in 94? For one, Bruguera obliterated him...then the rest of the field did too. Bruguera was not in the same class as Berasategui. Would Berastagui ever have been able to serve and volley his way to a victory over Rafter at Wimbledon as Bruguera did in 94? A British court side reporter later wrote that he was "shocked" that Bruguera could volley so well, "that it wasn't just easy volleys either," that some of his volleys were "Edberg like." Still, don't believe Bruguera doesn't have any touch or feel? Go watch his match last year with Courier in the finals of the Delta Tour of Champions from Paris. Bruguera toyed with Courier the whole match, he never needed to try and bash the ball. Instead he literally played like Santoro, playing cat and mouse tennis relying on drop shots, angles, and drop volleys. Obviously, on the main tour, Bruguera didn't play this way, because he was more serious then; but this still does not mean he did not have soft hands.
As far as Muster, he in my opinion would have won the 1997 Australian Open had he not faced Sampras, but then again you can say that about a lot of players INCLDUING Moya, who apparently is part of the new generation of clay courters that can play on hard courts, now couldn't you? Muster beat Sampras on his way to winning the Stutgart indoor masters during his peak.
I don't get why Muster and Bruguera are put in the same class as Berasategui. They are not. Berasategui was a good player, but never a great player. Bruguera and Muster if they were HEALTHY and playing their best, I honestly feel they would be competitive with any so-called hard court or fast court player regardless of the surface. I cannot say the same about Berasategui, because his backhand was too weak.
Would Ferrero or for that matter even Guga have been able to take a set from Sampras 6-1 indoors back when the courts actually played like indoor courts? How is that not being able to play on faster stuff?
Why is that when injuries befall guys like Guga and Ferrero, there is now an understanding and acknowledgement that injuries can and DO turn careers around, do send careers down the toilet?
Why did Bruguera retire? Because he said he couldn't and hadn't been able to train like he needed to for many years because of all the injury problems he had. Bruguera's problems started when he was just 23, and even before 93 you have to realize that he 1) only played on hardcourts ONE time in his entire life prior to turning 18, and 2) he was dealing with a serious back condition very similar to the one that derailed Moya in the late 90s.
I don't think it's a fair comparison to right Bruguera off on his ability to play faster stuff when he was not playing under the same circumstances as others. Why is that there is understanding that Guga plays in pain and that reason he has been underperforming the past few years is because of that? Why not the same consideration for Muster who had his knee basically blown up by a drunk motorcyclist?
Muster had every right to feel so much "vindication" that he and Bruguera made the finals of the 97 Lipton over all the so-called hard-court players. What you think Muster wasn't aware that Bruguera had his share of problems too? That a HEALTHY Bruguera was not actually the #86 player in the world as he was at the end of 96? Call me biased, but I think he was.
And the thing is, I was not even a Muster fan, and I wasn't even a Bruguera fan until his play at the 97 Lipton gave me a glimpse of just how well he could play.
I actually grew up idolizing the games of Stich, Pioline, Forget, and Medvedev in the early to mid 90s, you know the so-called "classical" technique players. The thing is, I later realized after I became obsessed with Bruguera, just how much bias there was against claycourters in the states and it really bothered me. Why? Because as someone who has played both styles, the "classic" way and the clay court western grip way, I do NOT see any style as being more difficult than the other, just different...btw, I can "hang" with low-level satellite/ATP players if that means anything. To me, they're both worthy of EQUAL respect, and the bias and stereotypes just bother me to no end.
And the thing is, I still prefer to watch the "classical" styles with the excpetion of Moya, Gonzales, Coria, and Robredo; but it still doesn't mean I won't speak up when I feel players are being unfairly stereotyped without full consideration of the circumstances they were under. It's not fair to assume that everyone's dealt the same deck of cards in the case of Muster and Bruguera, because they weren't. Injuries for Bruguera and THE injury to end all injuries for Muster. "Sweet justice" Muster called it when he avenged his demons at the 97 Lipton.
To me, when Muster and Bruguera were at their best, which wasn't as prolonged as with others for the reasons mentioned above, they were every bit as dangerous on the fast stuff as the so-called "modern" clay courters.
They were no Berasategui.
