From the beginning of the Open Era in 1968 to the shift away from carpet at tour-level events in the mid-2000s, 13 different men won titles on all four surfaces-hard, clay, grass, and carpet-in a single season. Eight of them did it at least twice. The list is every bit as impressive as you’d expect: Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Rod Laver, John McEnroe, Ilie Nastase, Ken Rosewall, Pete Sampras… and Michael Stich.
Before the world witnessed the silky strokes of Federer there was Michael Stich. Federer is my favourite player to watch however it is Stich that has Roger beaten hands down in two areas: Stich's service motion to this day is the most graceful effortless power that I've ever seen. His one handed backhand, equally silky smooth. Undeniably smoother than Federer's, especially in the follow through. Unfortunately Stich was a perfectionist and his frustration on the court reared it's head and he often looked moody when he wasn't on his day. It's possible that Stich was one of Federer's idols as there is footage of Federer as a ballboy receiving a medal from Stich after the Basel final that Stich played in when Federer was a boy.
when Stich was ON he could beat anyone. Positive head to head against a guy called Pete Sampras.....................And the one to beat Muster in 1996 on Clay, after Muster had won allmost everything on clay for a year and a half. In my book not a wasted talent or underachiever, but he could have won more with another mental attitude. I allways loved watching him play
Is it wrong for me to think he’s not quite a Hall of Famer? Excellent player to be sure but when I think Michael Stich, Hall of Famer isn’t what comes to mind. I saw him win Wimbledon and beat Becker in the final. he did play a great match and a great tournament but I think he had an erratic career.
@@jackdanielss The question is whether Roddick´s career was better than Stich´s? The only difference is that Roddick was nr. 1 for a brief period of time turing a transition period. Stich was just a "nr. 2". In gereral there seems to be an extreme bias towards US players. They are favoured over european players and claycourt players seem to hardly exist for the THoF. Just as if only what you did on US-hardcourts mattered.
From the beginning of the Open Era in 1968 to the shift away from carpet at tour-level events in the mid-2000s, 13 different men won titles on all four surfaces-hard, clay, grass, and carpet-in a single season. Eight of them did it at least twice. The list is every bit as impressive as you’d expect: Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Rod Laver, John McEnroe, Ilie Nastase, Ken Rosewall, Pete Sampras… and Michael Stich.
Also one double, two major finals on two other surfaces, 16 ATP titles on all surfaces, including. carpet. Also won Davis Cup with Germany, losing on,y one match out of 11 played in that edition. Reached number 2 ATP.
@@RW-kx7fb It's always interesting how some people have to lecture you without being asked🤣🤣🤣... even if this great internet research is correct, it's still no reason for Hall of Fame... other players were much more successful
It‘s not only the number of titles, which count. It’s also the kind of way. 1991 in Wimbledon beating the Wimbledon Gigants Becker and Edberg. And It‘s also the respect, you give to the others - and the others give to you. Pete Sampras once said: „If everybody is playing his best tennis, the winner can only be one: Michael Stich.“ Further, Stich was famous, respected and loved for his fair play!
From the beginning of the Open Era in 1968 to the shift away from carpet at tour-level events in the mid-2000s, 13 different men won titles on all four surfaces-hard, clay, grass, and carpet-in a single season. Eight of them did it at least twice. The list is every bit as impressive as you’d expect: Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Rod Laver, John McEnroe, Ilie Nastase, Ken Rosewall, Pete Sampras… and Michael Stich.
Great speach
Before the world witnessed the silky strokes of Federer there was Michael Stich. Federer is my favourite player to watch however it is Stich that has Roger beaten hands down in two areas: Stich's service motion to this day is the most graceful effortless power that I've ever seen. His one handed backhand, equally silky smooth. Undeniably smoother than Federer's, especially in the follow through. Unfortunately Stich was a perfectionist and his frustration on the court reared it's head and he often looked moody when he wasn't on his day. It's possible that Stich was one of Federer's idols as there is footage of Federer as a ballboy receiving a medal from Stich after the Basel final that Stich played in when Federer was a boy.
Superman
when Stich was ON he could beat anyone. Positive head to head against a guy called Pete Sampras.....................And the one to beat Muster in 1996 on Clay, after Muster had won allmost everything on clay for a year and a half. In my book not a wasted talent or underachiever, but he could have won more with another mental attitude. I allways loved watching him play
Is it wrong for me to think he’s not quite a Hall of Famer? Excellent player to be sure but when I think Michael Stich, Hall of Famer isn’t what comes to mind. I saw him win Wimbledon and beat Becker in the final.
he did play a great match and a great tournament but I think he had an erratic career.
Erratic, sure. Sometimes sublime, beautiful tennis.
It's close. In addition to W, he made the finals at the USO, FO, and won the Davis Cup. But is he more deserving than, say, Thomas Muster?
To be fair he waited a while to get in. There are other like Roddick who got in as a first ballot
@@jackdanielss The question is whether Roddick´s career was better than Stich´s? The only difference is that Roddick was nr. 1 for a brief period of time turing a transition period. Stich was just a "nr. 2".
In gereral there seems to be an extreme bias towards US players. They are favoured over european players and claycourt players seem to hardly exist for the THoF.
Just as if only what you did on US-hardcourts mattered.
From the beginning of the Open Era in 1968 to the shift away from carpet at tour-level events in the mid-2000s, 13 different men won titles on all four surfaces-hard, clay, grass, and carpet-in a single season. Eight of them did it at least twice. The list is every bit as impressive as you’d expect: Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Rod Laver, John McEnroe, Ilie Nastase, Ken Rosewall, Pete Sampras… and Michael Stich.
One Grand Slam title is enough for a Hall of Fame??? WOW 😂😂😂😂
Also one double, two major finals on two other surfaces, 16 ATP titles on all surfaces, including. carpet. Also won Davis Cup with Germany, losing on,y one match out of 11 played in that edition. Reached number 2 ATP.
@@RW-kx7fb It's always interesting how some people have to lecture you without being asked🤣🤣🤣... even if this great internet research is correct, it's still no reason for Hall of Fame... other players were much more successful
It‘s not only the number of titles, which count. It’s also the kind of way. 1991 in Wimbledon beating the Wimbledon Gigants Becker and Edberg. And It‘s also the respect, you give to the others - and the others give to you. Pete Sampras once said: „If everybody is playing his best tennis, the winner can only be one: Michael Stich.“ Further, Stich was famous, respected and loved for his fair play!