Edberg and Muster were contemporaries on the ATP tour. For much of their careers, Stefan far out shone Muster. Muster, an Austrian who played the classical baseliner style that is diametrically opposed to Edberg's fluid, net-charging game, had (and has) his own considerable following. While Edberg garnered 6 grand slam titles between 1986 and 1992, Muster, although widely respected for the prowess of his ground strokes, was a second-tier player on the tour, until 1995, when he finally won the French Open.
Unlikely as it may seem, Edberg was Muster's nemesis. Since their first meeting in 1986, Stefan had triumphed over Thomas in everyone of their encounters, including four times on clay.
And so the stage was set in 1996 for Muster, in a belated bloom of his career, to finally break the Edberg spell. By then, the two's fortune had reversed. Muster, in the wake of his overdue success in Roland Garros, was top ranked on the tour and a high seed at tournaments. Edberg, meanwhile, had fallen to a ranking in the 20s, and was entering tournaments as an unseeded player. 1996 was to be the last of the Swedish champion's illustrious career which spanned 14 years on the ATP tour.
As fate would have it, the two were to meet three times during that year. Their first battle of the year was at the Queen's tournament, where Muster, clearly eager to make a statement, put on one of his best shows on grass. It took a commanding performance and three hard-fought sets for Edberg, two-time Wimbledon Champion, to keep the Austrian clay-court specialist at bay.
So when the two's paths were to cross again later that year in the second round at the CA Tennis Trophy Tournament, this time in Muster's homeland, Vienna, the die was seemingly cast for Thomas to finally exact his revenge and offset the Swede's stranglehold in their 9:0 head-to-head record.
Edberg and Muster, both archetypal blond Europeans, were two of the fittest players on the tour. Stefan was taller and a year older. Having weathered a more demanding career, Stefan had incurred more wear and tear. And it showed. Although strikingly handsome as ever, there was now a visible weariness in Edberg's movements. On his farewell tour that year, Stefan had played over twenty tournaments, and he clearly looked forward to the long awaited rest at the end of the year.
Muster's career was briefly interrupted by injuries sustained from an auto accident some years ago. It was through sheer determination that the Austrian recovered and then resumed his career. His win at Roland Garros the year before was long overdue, and had recharged his career to new height.
And so it was that the two met in Vienna in October, in a match played indoor, on carpet, to a full crowd. Elsewhere, Edberg had been showered with affection wherever he showed up during that year on the tour. But not here in Vienna, where, from the start, the crowd did not hide its favor for their own. Lean and trim, Thomas, the top seed in the tournament, strolled on court with brisk steps, bearing the look of a man of supreme confidence and on a mission.
But the first point immediately went against the crowd. Edberg received Thomas' serve from the baseline, and stayed there. Striking the ball with pin-point accuracy, Stefan out dueled the Austrian three points in a row to immediately reach break point.
Although Edberg's serve was vulnerable at that stage of his career, Muster seemed to have problem with it still. A few vintage Edberg plays later, the second game was his. The first set went to Stefan easily at 6-4.
Thomas, however, was just then warming up the inside out ground stroke that earned him the respect as a supreme clay-court player. As the match progressed, Muster was increasingly able to send the ball past Stefan at the net. Four or five years earlier, Edberg would have no problem volleying back many of these balls, but on this day, less than two months from the end of his days on tour, Stefan was passed at the net time and again.
It soon became noticeable that Stefan's movement was increasingly sluggish. Although his serve continued to confound Muster, Stefan was soon missing his volleys with regularity. And when Muster launched his top-spin lobs, Edberg made little attempt to recover, as he was wont to do normally.
At 6-6 in the second set, Edberg played one of the worst tie-breaks in his career and lost the second set to Thomas, to the wild cheers of the crowd.
Written account of the match would report that Edberg was suffering from the flu that day. On the Eurosports broadcast, Stefan can be seen coughing slightly during the first set. The symptoms appeared to worsen as the match progressed. During changeovers in the second set, Stefan was shown sneezing and coughing frequently. At one point, when he ran up to the baseline behind yet another lob, Edberg teetered on wobbly feet, and appeared to have to steady himself by holding on to the backstop. Only his effective serve on that day kept him on an even keel with Muster.
Emboldened by his second-set win, Thomas was now in full flight. More aggressive than ever, he started to pass Stefan repeatedly. Muster executed numerous effective lobs, and even came to the net on occasions. As the third set drew to 5-5, the crowd's rhythmic clapping became more strident, and rowdy yells of "Thomas" could be heard.
Stefan's struggle became increasingly apparent. Normally impeccably groomed, his hair became carelessly tousled. The tail of his black-and-white striped shirt was hanging out. Around his chair, soaked shirts and towels were left strewn about. At one changeover, the camera shows him coughing into a towel, drinking from a bottle, forcing himself to ingest some banana, and then retching into a cup.
With the third set at 6-5 and at the end of the last changeover, Thomas Muster once again strolled briskly onto the court, to loud applause, to serve for a tie-break. Stefan Edberg struggled to pull on a fresh shirt before he rose from his chair, and lumbered to the other side of the court to take up his position.
Sensing the drama at hand, The crowd started a quickened synchronized clapping. Muster served the first point eagerly. Stefan charged the net, and was promptly passed. The crowd exploded. The Austrians at court side applauded emphatically. Thomas was now three points from a match-determining tie-break.
In the next point, Muster served out wide and executed ground strokes that pulled Edberg from side to side. In previous points, Stefan had vainly traded ground strokes with his opponent, often yielding the point by sending the ball into the net or outside the lines. This time, however, Edberg twice struck the ball down the line: the first time to the ad court side; the next time to the deuce court side. The Austrian stretched to barely return the first, but could manage only a weak defensive lob on the second. A subsequent easy overhead by Edberg put away the point. From the lofts in the hall, faint cheers rose from the minority in the crowd who supported the Swedish champion.
In the next point, Muster served to the middle, then, after two rounds of trading ground strokes, sent a blistering cross-court to Edberg's forehand. Holding his stroke until the last minute, Stefan unleashed another well-struck, down-the-line ball, whose landing Muster could only watch in frustration. The spectators on the court-sides did not applaud.
At 15-30, Muster sent the ball to Edberg's backhand side. Once again, Edberg waited till the last minute and then struck the ball cleanly along the side line. Yet once again, Muster could not travese the baseline on his side in time to answer. Edberg leaned back and clenched both fists.
It is now match point. For the third time in a row, Thomas faulted on his first serve. The Austrian crowd held its collective breath. On Muster's second serve, the ball struck the net with a loud thud, to the astonishment of the spectators. Game, set, match. Thomas walked to the net quickly and waited for Edberg. The shocked crowd rose slowly, and the applause was decidedly subdued.
Edberg doubled over slightly before he briefly shook the outstretched hand of the umpire. Upon returning to his chair, he doubled over again and appeared to be grasping for air, holding both hands up to turn away the ball boys who were approaching for autographs. The last camera shot of the tape shows a distraught Edberg looking up in the direction of the stands, as if seeking help from Annette, his wife.
In spite of having numerous chances in this match, Muster was never able to break the ailing Edberg on the verge of his retirement.
Three weeks later, Edberg and Muster were to meet yet once more in Paris. I remember thinking at the time that surely after this match the head-to-head of these two will stand in record books as 10-1. As it turned out, it was Muster who could not finish their last meeting, retiring after the first set ended at 6-2, in Edberg's favor.
Somethings are not meant to be.
Head-to-head records, Stefan Edberg vs. Muster - 11:0 1986 Gstaad Clay (O) 32 Stefan EDBERG 6-3 7-6 1988 TOC Forest Hills Clay (O) 16 Stefan EDBERG 6-4 6-3 1990 World Team Cup Clay (O) R2 Stefan EDBERG 6-2 6-4 1994 Australian Open Hard (O) QF Stefan EDBERG 6-2 6-3 6-4 1994 Monte Carlo Clay (O) QF Stefan EDBERG 6-7 7-6 6-4 1995 Indian Wells Hard (O) QF Stefan EDBERG 2-6 6-4 6-1 1995 Davis Cup (WG-QF) Carpet (I) R4 Stefan EDBERG 6-4 6-2 1996 Queen's Grass (O) SF Stefan EDBERG 6-7 6-3 6-2 1996 Vienna Carpet (I) 16 Stefan EDBERG 6-4 6-7 7-5 1996 Paris Indoor Carpet 6-2 (Muster retired)
For added interest, here are some vintage postings on the subject of Edberg vs. MusterFrom: youngkim@acsu.buffalo.edu Subject: Re: PARIS (Edberg and Muster) Date: 1996/11/02 Woody Jin wrote: > > In article <558eak$9qj@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu>, youngkim@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote: > > >But whenever Edberg is faced with Muster, a smile comes to my face. > >Muster has never beaten the serve-and-volley king in 10 tries or so. > >He just can't figure out how to effectively stop Edberg's attacking > >game. He's constantly threatened even on his own serve. Edberg > >knows how to take full advantage of Muster's inherent weaknesses. > > IMHO, it is not really Edberg's mastery of Muster's weakness, but > rather Edberg knows very well his weakness and covers it up well. > He is not good at ground stroke, and he consistently uses serve and > volley, and whenever possible he tries to reduce the time of ground stroke. > But in case of Sampras, for example, he thinks that he can > beat in ground stroke battles, which is not really easy against clay court > specialists like Muster. > -- > Woody Jin I'm not sure what you are getting at. Of course, a good player's game is based largely on making up for his weaknesses. But a large part is based on fully utilizing his talents and strengths. And a variable amount of effort goes in to exploiting the opponent's weaknesses. Guys like Sampras has no real weaknesses to speak of - oh well . . . perhaps in closing on the net after serve - as his first-volley position is often well behind the service line . . . and perhaps volleying consistently against good returners or passing-shot-makers . . . and perhaps winning in long and drawn out rallies from the baseline - as his margin for error is pretty slim. Is he playing to his strengths or covering up for his weaknesses or exploiting Muster's weaknesses? Maybe all of the above? I think it'll be interesting to examine just how Edberg and Sampras plays Muster. Well, first, on how to best take advantage of Muster's weaknesses: Groundstrokes: hit harder and flatter against his extreme grips and exxagerated topspin strokes; take the ball on the rise to take his running game away; take advangage of him choosing to play back of the baseline by mixing up (e.g., throwing in sharply angled slices, dropshots); but the problem is that these are all so difficult to execute effectively to win more points than him from the baseline; only a handful of guys can beat him from the baseline alone - and that is only on good days; it just isn't a great winning position for most Return of service and passing shots: serve big (obviously easier said than done), especially to the one-handed-backhand and to the body; don't let him cheat by running around to hit an inside-out-forehand by keeping him guessing; although his returns are not first-rate, it's nontheless very hard to take advantage of; Muster likes to float many returns deep and you will have to ralley with him; he can make passing shots, but his percentage goes way down when kept off-balance; these are all on relative terms; so many other guys can hit better passing shots if were put in Muster's shoes; so approaching the net can be very successful if you have good net-playing abilities Service: attack his mediocre second serves by chipping and charging or getting a jump on it; this is one of the most difficult plays in tennis; but if you can do it reasonably well, you'll get a look at a volley where as guys like Agassi or even Ivanisevic will not give you this option with their all-or-nothing attitude; the problem is doing something with Muster's reply; and there just aren't that many good volleyers left on the tour So I guess what I'm saying is that the best play against Muster (if possible) would be serve big, stay aggressive, attack from all positions but especially the net, and put away the reply - which all seem obvious. Edberg likes to attack all the time - especially with his net-play. His success varies with what the opponent offers in return. Is it his all-time -great volleys that made Edberg's groundiees relatively weaker? Or was it his relatively weak groundies which made him work extra hard on developing his volleying technique? The chicken or the egg? Does he play against Muster in any different way than he does against others? Perhaps a little - as Muster often lets him do whatever he wants to do - Edberg is on full-flight. Again, the percentages. Muster may have come close to beating Edberg at times, but stylistically and actually, Edberg's game gave Muster more trouble than anyone else on the tour. Edberg makes Muster look bad. This image is so powerfully ingrained in my mind that I find it very difficult to appreciate Muster's abilities (which is slowly changing). Not many guys can claim that sort of mastery. And Muster has beaten the other top guys - more than once. Does Edberg play that way because that's his only option or his best option? Edberg's game never has been overpowering the opponent from the baseline. His groundstrokes are almost gentle. But he doesn't make that many unforced errors on normal days. He is not easily overpowered by the sheer pace alone, and he can use the pace against you. This is true even when he plays Agassi. It's just that guys like Agassi can put away Edberg's replay out of his reach. Edberg's groundies are oriented toward control, placement, and spin (e.g., topspin, underspin). His slice backhands are excellent - penetrating, deep, doesn't rise very much - thus very hard to attack. And he will use it both defensively and offensively. He will always aggressive attack short balls. And he will crack incredible backhand drives when he's feeling good. It would be a bit misleading to just say Edberg plays the net because he can't hack it from the baseline. When Edberg was at his prime, his groundstrokes stood up with the best of them - it wasn't the most offensive but you really couldn't take advantage of them. And, contrary to what other netters suggested, Edberg at his prime had no trouble rallying from the baseline against the likes of Lendl (as in 1990 AO F, 1991 USO SF)(even against Courier in 1991 USO F) - although his forehand could've used a little help. Sampras does very well against Muster. But he could use abilities such as Edberg's from the net to really make Muster look bad. Sorry for another long article. Young W. Kim _____________________________________________________________________ From: Sanj ("ssiva\""@\"orbital\".\"com) Subject: Why did Edberg own Muster? (Was: Re: MUSTER BEAT IVANISEVIC) Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis View this article only Date: 1997/01/29 Mikhail Solodov wrote:> Look at the way Edberg used to destroy Muster on _any_ surface. Hi, Does this include clay? I am curious. > He would just come in on everything. Not only Edberg's baseline game > was below his other abilities, he wouldn't even try it against Muster. > He would attack the net on everything, and with great success. > Micahel. To what do you attribue this fact - the fact that Edberg owned the Moo-man? Is it because of the excessive top-spin that Muster uses? As a volleyer, you would think that a ball that comes at you high over the net - as a ball with heavy top-spin tends to do - would be easier than a ball that skims over the net. Since Muster isn't used to hitting flat too much, I would think that he would have problems *having* to do that, to deal with a guy who sits on the net. Also, Muster's lateral movement is great! But, he isn't that good at moving forward and back towards the net. You need to be able to do that well to deal with a volleyer, I think. What do you guys think? Sanj ______________________________________________________________________________ Message 2 in thread From: Michael Taube (ftright@ibm.net) Subject: Re: Why did Edberg own Muster? (Was: Re: MUSTER BEAT IVANISEVIC) Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis View this article only Date: 1997/01/30 Sanj wrote: > To what do you attribue this fact - the fact that Edberg owned the Moo-man? > Is it because of the excessive top-spin that Muster uses? As a volleyer, > you would think that a ball that comes at you high over the net - as a > ball with heavy top-spin tends to do - would be easier than a ball that > skims over the net. Since Muster isn't used to hitting flat too much, > I would think that he would have problems *having* to do that, to deal > with a guy who sits on the net. > Also, Muster's lateral movement is great! But, he isn't that good at > moving forward and back towards the net. You need to be able to do > that well to deal with a volleyer, I think. > What do you guys think? It is difficult to understand why Muster was 0-13 in his career against Edberg. You think he could have scraped at least 2-3 wins over the years! Here are my feelings: 1) Wrong style of game. Edberg's serve and volley technique has the ability to throw off someone like Muster. Thomas's adventures to the net are few and far between. That helped feed Edberg's play. 2) The 1989 injury. For a long period of time, Muster and Edberg did not play one another because of Muster's injury from the car accident at the Lipton. Muster was about to reach to another level at that point. The time off didn't help much. 3) No matches in 1995. The one year Muster dominated tennis, he never played Edberg once. Just an interesting fact to keep note of! 4) Muster's lack of all-court play. Up until very recently, Muster stayed put on the red clay as much as possible. Many of the matches that Muster and Edberg played on were on surfaces other than clay. They did meet at the FO once - Edberg beat him in 3 sets. Sure, there are other things that may have reached the subconscious of Muster (ie. - the inability to win against Edberg in an entire career). It has happened before in many rivalries, such as Lendl-Gomez, for instance. However, dominance can be broken at times. Take the Lendl-Connors match-ups. For years, Jimbo dominated Lendl. By the end of their series, Lendl had won more of the matches. Michael Taube (ftright@ibm.net) _________________________________________________________________________ Michael Taube wrote: > It is difficult to understand why Muster was 0-13 in his career against > Edberg. You think he could have scraped at least 2-3 wins over the > years! I think the official figure is 0-9 or 0-10. Muster does have a WalkOver advance at the 1989 Australian Open QF where Edberg withdrew before match due to serious back injury. Edberg's four clay wins over Muster are: 1986 Gstaad Clay 1R 6-3,7-6 1988 TOC/Forest Hills Clay 3R 6-4,6-3 1990 World Team Cup Clay RR 6-2,6-4 1994 Monte Carlo Clay QF 6-7(8-10),7-6(7-2),6-4 The other matches in my record are: 1994 Australian Open Hard QF 6-2,6-3,6-4 (I saw all of this match; Edberg dominated in all departments) 1995 Indian Wells Hard QF 2-6,6-4,6-1 1996 Queen's Club Grass SF 6-7(6-2),6-3,6-2 1996 Two other indoor matches (Paris? Essen?) > Here are my feelings: > > 1) Wrong style of game. Edberg's serve and volley technique has the > ability to throw off someone like Muster. Thomas's adventures to > the net are few and far between. That helped feed Edberg's play. Yes. And much more. > 2) The 1989 injury. For a long period of time, Muster and Edberg > did not play one another because of Muster's injury from the > car accident at the Lipton. Muster was about to reach to another > level at that point. The time off didn't help much. Muster recovered from the injury in 6 months. Edberg was playing his best tennis at that time. Edberg won at the 1990 World Team Cup on clay. Muster just wasn't a major player outside of clay until about two years ago. He simply wasn't up to the calibre of Stefan. So there is really nothing surprising about the statistics. The clay results may be somewhat surprising, but consider Edberg's clay record at the bottom. > 3) No matches in 1995. The one year Muster dominated tennis, he never > played Edberg once. Just an interesting fact to keep note of! Wrong. Look at the 1995 Indian Wells above when Muster's ranking was 18. This is the year Muster made his breakthrough. His turning point IMO was surviving that SF match in Monte Carlo against XX (?) and surviving two match points for Boris Becker at the finals. This was the momentum he needed to win the French and sweep the competition on clay for that year including his only (?) indoor win. Since Edberg beat him the year before at Monte Carlo, it would've been interesting to see how Muster would've fared against Edberg in the tournament. But at best it's only speculative. > 4) Muster's lack of all-court play. Up until very recently, Muster > stayed put on the red clay as much as possible. Many of the > matches that Muster and Edberg played on were on surfaces other > than clay. They did meet at the FO once - Edberg beat him in 3 > sets. I don't think so. My record shows they never met at the French. If they played 9 times, 4 out of 9 is a pretty good indicator of their clay court match up. Muster lost to Sampras in three in 1992 I think. > However, dominance can be broken at times. Take the Lendl-Connors > match-ups. For years, Jimbo dominated Lendl. By the end of their > series, Lendl had won more of the matches. This can be said in almost every situation. Unfortunately, it's all very speculative and not of much help. It's not like Muster didn't have much opportunity to challenge Edberg. Well, Edberg played Muster at least three more times last year - his farewell year. They were tight matcches. But Edberg's game again proved to be just too much for Muster to handle. I don't see how you can argue with this. The following are some notable patterns in Edberg's wins and losses on clay: 1983 Bournemouth SF J. Higueras ESP 1-6,1-6 Bastad 2R M. Wilander SWE 3-6,5-7 1984 French Open 2R A. Jarryd SWE 4-6,6-3,6-7,6-7 1985 French Open 1R J. Hlasek SUI 4R A. Jarryd SWE QF J. Connors USA 4-6,3-6,6-7 Bastad SF K. Carlsson SWE F M. Wilander SWE 1-6,0-6 1986 Monte Carlo QF A. Gomez EQU SF J. Nystrom SWE 5-7,6-4,3-6 French Open 2R M. Pernfors SWE 5-set loss Bastad 1R C. Bergstrom SWE SF E. Sanchez ESP 3-6,3-6 1987 Monte Carlo 2R U. Stenlund SWE Bastad 1R S. Eriksson SWE 2R T. Haldin SWE SF E. Sanchez ESP F J. Nystrom SWE 6-4,0-6,3-6 1988 Forest Hills 3R T. Muster AUT 6-4,6-3 QF S. ZiboJinov YUG 6-1,2-6,4-6 French Open 1R K. Novacek CZE 2R A. Boetsch FRA 3R J. Gunnarsson SWE 4R G. P-Roldan ARG 5-7, 3-6,3-6 1989 Munich 3R C-W. Steeb FRG QF A. Mancini ARG 7-6,6-2 SF M. Strelba FRG 3-6,3-6 French Open 2R N. Pereira VEN 3R J. Arias USA 4R G. Ivanisevic YUG QF A. Mancini ARG 6-1,6-3,7-6 SF B. Becker FRG 5-set win F M. Chang USA 5-set loss 1990 Monte Carlo 2R J. Arias USA 3R J. Aguilera ESP 6-7,6-7 Munich 1R C. Rensburg SA 2R M. Strelba CZE 4-6,1-6 World Team C RR T. Muster AUT 6-2,6-4 French Open 1R S. Brugera ESP 4-6,2-6,1-6 1991 Monte Carlo 2R M. Larsson SWE 7-5,3-6,6-7 Hamburg 3R R. Agenor HAI 6-2,6-1 QF M. Stich GER 2-6,6-7 World Team C F G. Ivanisevic YUG 6-4,7-5 French Open 2R H. Skoff AUT 3R A. Chesnokov URS 4R A. Cherkasov URS QF J. Courier USA 4-6,6-2,3-6,4-6 1992 Hamburg 2R J. Arrese ESP 6-3,6-4 3R F. Clavet ESP 6-3,6-1 QF O. Camporese ITA 2-6,7-6,6-2 SF C. Costa ESP 7-6,7-6 F M. Stich GER 5-7,6-4,6-1 (W) French Open 3R A. Cherkasov RUS 3-set loss Stuttgart 3R J. Sanchez ESP QF A. Medvedev UKR 6-1,4-6,4-6 1993 Nice 2R A. Cherkasov RUS QF J. Sanchez ESP SF M. Goellner GER 2-6,5-7 Monte Carlo 2R H. Leconte FRA 3R J. Sanchez ESP QF A. Medvedev UKR SF C. Pioline FRA 4-6,4-6 Madrid 2R J. Svensson SWE QF A. Corretja ESP 6-3,6-2 SF E. Sanchez ESP 6-0,7-5 F S. Bruguera ESP 6-3,6-3,6-2 (W) Hamburg 3R E. Sanchez ESP 6-4,6-7,4-6 World Team C RR A. Boetsch FRA RR P. Korda CZE 1-6,1-6 RR M. Stich GER 2-6,0-6 French Open 2R A. Kriekstein USA 3R J. Stark USA 4R P. Haarhuis NET QF A. Medvedev UKR 4-set loss 1994 Nice 2R E. Alvarez ESP QF A. Berasategui ESP 4-6,3-6 Monte Carlo 2R A. Costa ESP 6-1,6-2 3R A. Corretja ESP 6-1,7-5 QF T. Muster AUT 6-7,7-6,6-4 SF S. Bruguera ESP 2-6,6-7 Madrid 2R A. Gaudenzi ITA 6-3,6-0 QF H. Yzaga PER 4-6,2-6 Hamburg 2R J. Yzaga PER 4-6,5-7 French Open 1R H. Holm SWE 5-set loss 1995 Monte Carlo 1R F. Santoro FRA 3-6,1-6 Munich 1R P. Rafter AUS 2R A. Boetsch FRA QF M. Stich GER 4-6,0-6 Rome 1R A. Boetsch FRA 2R M. Rios CHI 6-3,6-3 3R C. Borroni ITA QF W. Ferreira SA 2-6,0-6 French OPen 1R F. Santoro FRA 2R M. Stich GER 1996 Monte Carlo 1R A. Corretja NET 7-6,6-3 2R R. Krajicek NET 6-0,4-6,2-6 Munich 1R A. Berasategui ESP 6-3,6-2 2R B. Karbacher GER 4-6,2-6 Rome 1R J. Siemerink NET 2R C. Pioline FRA 3R G. Ivanisevic CRO QF R. Krajicek NET 3-6,3-6 St. Polten 1R K. Kucera SLV 2R B. Black SA 3R S. Dosedel 3-6,3-6 French Open 1R K. Alami MOR 6-4,6-2,6-4 2R C. Moya ESP 6-2,6-2,6-1 4R M. Chang USA QF M. Rosset SUI 6-7,3-6,3-6 So do you see a pattern emerging here? Some of the more interesting facts I see are: - couple of losses to the little man Yzaga - lots of matches with the Spaniards, Swedes and Russians - great success against Spaniards (except Brugeura) - success against Austrians (including Muster) - success against Boetsch (6-0 before one loss last year) - struggle against fellow Swedes (especially Wilander) - struggle against obscure Germans - destroyed numerous tough clay court specialists - struggle against the likes of Medvedev, Stich, Krajicek, Rosset, Korda (to a lesser degree Becker & Pioline) Do you see how erroneous the notion of clay monsters working Edberg to death? Edberg just liked playing Muster and one-dimensional players like him on any surface. Pete, can you top this? ___________________________________________________________________________ Sanj wrote: > > Mikhail Solodov wrote: > > > Look at the way Edberg used to destroy Muster on _any_ surface. > > Hi, > Does this include clay? I am curious. Yes. Since the Moo-man seldom ventured outside dirt, Edberg took it to him on 4 occasions. Of course Edberg won all of those and 5 other matches on other surfaces. That says a lot about those two very different players in every aspect. > Is it because of the excessive top-spin that Muster uses? As a volleyer, > you would think that a ball that comes at you high over the net - as a > ball with heavy top-spin tends to do - would be easier than a ball that > skims over the net. Since Muster isn't used to hitting flat too much, > I would think that he would have problems *having* to do that, to deal > with a guy who sits on the net. > Also, Muster's lateral movement is great! But, he isn't that good at > moving forward and back towards the net. You need to be able to do that > well to deal with a volleyer, I think. > What do you guys think? > Sanj All of the above and more. It takes a hell of consistent and powerful shots to threaten Edberg at the net. Edberg just wasn't bothered by what Muster offered (save for occasional well-placed passers). Only shots which worked against Edberg were screaming bullets and low & damn hard shots at the feet. Muster's returns were neither. Also Edberg loved to take advantage of Muster's one-handed backhand. He attacked it 70-80% of the time. And Muster just wasn't able to hurt Edberg with that shot. Also Muster's serve wasn't all that powerful then. Edberg loved attacking Muster's serve. In short, Edberg was the most fearsome natural enemy of Muster. Young