- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,041
- Reactions
- 5,608
- Points
- 113
[BLOG] Open Era Generations, Part Eleven: Gen 9 (1974-78) - A Transitional Era
- Thread starter El Dude
- Start date
Kieran
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 16,880
- Reactions
- 7,083
- Points
- 113
Interesting stuff.
Back then also, the tour was divided, and so this made players achievements "different" to todays. The old clay-grass divide was in its peak. I don't think of this era as weak at all, because there were so many "good" and "very good" players who fought hard to be better, but it was very fragmented, because of the contrast in surface speeds. Blokes still threw shapes though. Kafelnikov was a huge disappointment because when he first arrived, he looked like he could win on all surfaces. He won halle on grass a few times, I think. He snagged an FO. Won Oz. But he played way too much, chasing the money and not showing any sense at all when it came to timing his rise for the slams.
I think Rios was too physically a lightweight to have been considered "heir apparent" to Pete, but could have been a Hewitt, and he was expected to shine on clay and win big on hards. More so than Muster, who was strictly a clay dog. But funny enough, Rios best performance in Paris was only QF, if I recall. Rios was mentally not the most sound, and for all his surly tough guy demeanor, I consider him to be too mentally weak to be a great player, as witnessed in the way he dropped a massive calf in his only GS final. Moya is another bloke who I thought would win more.
If Rios was an under-achiever, Henman was always an over-achiever, I felt. One of the most likeable and honest players, in terms of his commitement and effort, and it drew great rewards. He was world #4 at some point, which is none too shoddy. Guga was indeed a clay god, one of the five great claycourters of the open era, alongside Rafa, Bjorn, Lendl and Mats, but unable to translate that into anything winning off the dirt, although his win at the WTF was special, as you noted, in being the only man to beat Pete and Agassi in the one event.
Great blog, Dude! :clap
Back then also, the tour was divided, and so this made players achievements "different" to todays. The old clay-grass divide was in its peak. I don't think of this era as weak at all, because there were so many "good" and "very good" players who fought hard to be better, but it was very fragmented, because of the contrast in surface speeds. Blokes still threw shapes though. Kafelnikov was a huge disappointment because when he first arrived, he looked like he could win on all surfaces. He won halle on grass a few times, I think. He snagged an FO. Won Oz. But he played way too much, chasing the money and not showing any sense at all when it came to timing his rise for the slams.
I think Rios was too physically a lightweight to have been considered "heir apparent" to Pete, but could have been a Hewitt, and he was expected to shine on clay and win big on hards. More so than Muster, who was strictly a clay dog. But funny enough, Rios best performance in Paris was only QF, if I recall. Rios was mentally not the most sound, and for all his surly tough guy demeanor, I consider him to be too mentally weak to be a great player, as witnessed in the way he dropped a massive calf in his only GS final. Moya is another bloke who I thought would win more.
If Rios was an under-achiever, Henman was always an over-achiever, I felt. One of the most likeable and honest players, in terms of his commitement and effort, and it drew great rewards. He was world #4 at some point, which is none too shoddy. Guga was indeed a clay god, one of the five great claycourters of the open era, alongside Rafa, Bjorn, Lendl and Mats, but unable to translate that into anything winning off the dirt, although his win at the WTF was special, as you noted, in being the only man to beat Pete and Agassi in the one event.
Great blog, Dude! :clap
mrzz
Hater
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 6,149
- Reactions
- 2,958
- Points
- 113
Random facts I recall about those days:
In one occasion, Kafelnikov went on to lose seven (maybe six) opening round matches while being the #1 (or just before he became number 1). Must be a record (given the ranking).
When Kuerten was #1, one brazilian tennis writer, writing on the country's most read newspaper, would weekly produce columns explaining why Kuerten was the worst #1 of all times.
I found curious to see Michael Russel's name cited, given that he never reached very high on the rankings (I guess). One of the most memorable matches of Kuerten at RG was precisely against him, coming back from two sets down, 3-5. Facing match point, winner on the line. It was the round of 16, he went on to win the title.
In one occasion, Kafelnikov went on to lose seven (maybe six) opening round matches while being the #1 (or just before he became number 1). Must be a record (given the ranking).
When Kuerten was #1, one brazilian tennis writer, writing on the country's most read newspaper, would weekly produce columns explaining why Kuerten was the worst #1 of all times.
I found curious to see Michael Russel's name cited, given that he never reached very high on the rankings (I guess). One of the most memorable matches of Kuerten at RG was precisely against him, coming back from two sets down, 3-5. Facing match point, winner on the line. It was the round of 16, he went on to win the title.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,041
- Reactions
- 5,608
- Points
- 113
Kieran, nice discussion - I always enjoy it when people flesh out my statistical surveys with first-hand accounts and memories. Just one point to respond to. I think if we're talking "clay gods" we have to include Muster, who was a beast on clay. Only one Slam, but 40 titles on clay (44 overall), and a ridiculous 40-5 record in clay finals. I know a lot of those were low-end tournaments, but he still one 8 Masters, 7 of which were on clay.
As for whether or not it was a weak generation, the total Slam count speaks to that. There was a lot of talent, but no real all-time great. It probably is somewhat similar to the next generation, Roger's, in terms of overall talent, except without Roger.
mrzz, interesting about Kuerten. Of course there were lesser number one players--Rios, Kafelnikov, Moya, and Ferrero come to mind. Safin and Muster are probably similar to him.
I mentioned Russell only because he only recently retired. My guess is that he's not even among the top 30 of the generation.
As for whether or not it was a weak generation, the total Slam count speaks to that. There was a lot of talent, but no real all-time great. It probably is somewhat similar to the next generation, Roger's, in terms of overall talent, except without Roger.
mrzz, interesting about Kuerten. Of course there were lesser number one players--Rios, Kafelnikov, Moya, and Ferrero come to mind. Safin and Muster are probably similar to him.
I mentioned Russell only because he only recently retired. My guess is that he's not even among the top 30 of the generation.