Yes, but there are not even #1's who can only play on clay. Muster, Moya, Ferrero are what i called "type 2 dirtballers" in the thread about RG champions vs. Wimbledon champions.
Exactly- these players had success on other surfaces. To dismiss them as weak on other surfaces is in my mind frankly unfair. They may not have had the same level of success that they did on clay - but they were not useless on other surfaces and all
had at least a Masters title or a GS final on a non-clay surface. Before Ferrero had his health problems in 2004 he made the USO final for goodness sake.
Who is the last number two player to have success on clay but no success on other surfaces? I can't recall any. You can find players who have success really only on clay and get in the top ten- Gaudio for example- but I can't recall any number two in my recent memory who just had success on clay and only on clay.
I will set you this scenario. There are three players. X,Y and Z. X is dominant on clay but poor otherwise. Y is excellent on all surfaces and does well on clay too. Z is a good all court player capable of winning on any surface though he is not as good as player Y. In this scenario I believe player Y would of course be the number one as he is generally the best, however i believe that in the tennis world of today player X would take second spot because of his clay dominance and player Z would be left in third.
Okay- I'll take a gander at this.
Here I would call player X someone like Gaudio- Y - a player like Federer, and Z- a player like Nalbandian.
X - A player like Gaudio will have some time spent in the top ten- but will never be a real strong factor for a long time in the top five. He will though have some big wins/results in big tournies that will help him stay in the top ten for a bit.
Y- A player of this caliber will be at the top for a good while.
Z- A player like this will be hovering around the top ten for a good while because they are strong on all surfaces. They may not get the huge wins- which will prevent them from really getting a foothold in the top five. But if they do start getting the big wins- could set up shop for a good while in the top five. (Nalby- please start getting your big wins and assembling your shop.)
Now- I don't think that just because players have their best results on clay means that they should be considered a player X. For example- Muster and Guga won Masters' titles on fast surfaces. Moya was a finalist at the Oz Open. Ferrero was a finalist at the USO. Nadal won Masters on outdoor and indoor hard this year. Coria has been a QF two times at the USO and reached the Round of 16 at all Grand Slams this year. So some of these players that some may say are getting good rankings just as clay specialists may actually have some very good, very solid and very important wins on non-clay surfaces.