This season, last season, every season Ancic has better results on clay than on hard courts. You sound like you've never even seen him play on a clay court. You should watch him before making these assumptions. Has it occured to you that a grass player could play better on clay than on hard courts?
Maybe you can explain me his results of last season on clay were better than on hardcourt.
And to clarify, I don't think he is a bad player on clay, but to call Ancic a TOP player on clay which is in my definition a term maybe reserved to three or four people, that's just something I can't accept unless you are defining as TOP clay players as maybe the best 10 players of last season.
2006 was a better season for Ancic on clay than on hardcourt, 2005 not.
Don't just look at the results, look at his game. On a clay court the ball sits up nicely for him and he can strike the ball beautifully off both wings. He is a smart player, he knows how to construct the points and control the rallies on a clay court. For a tall player, he moves extremely well on a clay and hence he can defend better than most players. Because he is a good volleyer, he can finish off the points much more effectively than most players, without worrying about bad bounces or his opponents' speed.
I don't deny at all that there is more behind a player's ability on the surface than only the bare results, but how does warning me not only to look at his record and three sentences later saying that Tommy Haas' record on clay is pathetic the last three years to prove your point that Haas is not good on clay go along with each other? Please don't only look at his results then also. It's not that Haas' game would not be good enough for clay to be at least a slightly above average player on it.