I am not saying he is the greatest ever. I do not think he is the greatest clay courter.
I do, however, think it is extremely interesting how much Federer dominates the other clay court players of his era. Without the possible-Clay-GOAT+terrible-individual-matchup Nadal, Federer would almost assuredly have won Roland Garros 3-5 times.
Of course, he did NOT win it that many times. He has won it once. However, I think we have to realize that he MIGHT be as good on clay as players like Kuerten, Bruguera, Courier etc etc who have won it 2-3 times.
Honestly, though, this isnt a Federer worship thread. I am legitimately curious what people think. If you think he is far below players like Bruguera or Kuerten or Muster or Courier on clay, then explain why (without just saying the obvious "one title at RG" argument). I would be very interested to hear an argument either way as long as it details specifically what about his game makes him good/not so good on clay.
This is a Federer worship thread.
This is not a new topic
and has been discussed numerous times actually with a lot of different scenarios and in other threads.
It's the fact that Federer has done the best against Nadal, who is one of the greatest players ever on the surface, therefore it must mean he is one of the greatest ever.
If you choose to ignore the fact how the style of game on clay has changed and is more like the hardcourt game translated on all surfaces and ignore other factors of when the players you think he is better than, by using numbers to justify his greatness without measuring other things, then it's a Fed worship thread.
Federer is probably the best attacking player in the classic sense along with Laver on clay, but that is a different thing altogether.