Nadal's Place In History : Discussion [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Nadal's Place In History : Discussion

Clay Death
04-24-2008, 03:21 AM
what are your thoughts about Nadal's place in history. it is near certain now that he will bag his 4th Roland Garros title just one week past his 22nd birthday. this leaves him with infinity to try to go after Borg`s record of 6. with his 4th Roland Garros title he will become only the second man to win it 4 years in a row since 1914.

If he can win here in Monte Carlo, he will be the first man to do it 4 years in a row since 1914. He is the first one to win in Rome 3 years running. Muster has 3 titles in Rome as well but not in a row.

he seems to be making a little bit of history with his #2 rank as well. i think its like 144 weeks in a row now that he has been ranked #2.

thoughts? can he pass Borg as the greatest clay court player ever lived? what must he do to get better that than he already is on clay?

people are always talking about a short career for Nadal given his style of play. does he have enough time to make his mark?

GlennMirnyi
04-24-2008, 03:23 AM
His place will be: a moonballer who won several titles on clay in a time without any great claycourter.

Next.

Action Jackson
04-24-2008, 03:23 AM
History will judge Nadal's career when he has retired.

Clay Death
04-24-2008, 03:25 AM
History will judge Nadal's career when he has retired.

its still fun to speculate. lot of what we do here is anticipation and speculation. this is why these forums exist. you will also note that i left it open for discussion about the aspects of his game as well. for instance, some may have suggestions as to how he can get even better on clay.

the matches and tournaments are actually quite brief and for that reason a lot of what we do is anticipate and speculate.

all that being said, you still make a good point.

Action Jackson
04-24-2008, 03:29 AM
its still fun to speculate. lot of what we do here is anticipation and speculation. this is why these forums exist.

the matches and tournaments are actually quite brief.

all that being said, you still make a good point.

Not really, there is only so far speculation goes, before it turns into broken dreams, grand delusions, knee jerk reactions and there are more than enough examples of this.

Hence my answer wait till Nadal retires, then it will one easier to judge and to realise what he actually achieved, too many variables involved.

General Suburbia
04-24-2008, 03:36 AM
PMK: Party Pooper :ras:

Kitty de Sade
04-24-2008, 03:38 AM
Passing Borg as the benchmark on clay? No, not when the final chapter is written about Nadal's career- he won't be at that level. No disrespect to his achievements, but no Borg.

Kolya
04-24-2008, 04:01 AM
Modern Vilas in a way.

Clay Death
04-24-2008, 05:04 AM
Passing Borg as the benchmark on clay? No, not when the final chapter is written about Nadal's career- he won't be at that level. No disrespect to his achievements, but no Borg.


what if he ends up with 7 French Opens?

GlennMirnyi
04-24-2008, 05:08 AM
what if he ends up with 7 French Opens?

Won't happen.

Clay Death
04-24-2008, 05:12 AM
Won't happen.

i think if he gets his 4th this year, the next 3 are in tha bag. who will ever believe--even for a second--that they can beat him at Roland Garros. all the players think he is damn near invincible on dirt now.

you have to remember that he gets his 4th Roland Garros title just 6 days after his 22nd birthday.

that effectively gives him 7 years to get 3.

Kitty de Sade
04-24-2008, 05:13 AM
what if he ends up with 7 French Opens?

CD, are you talking pure TENNIS results only? Even if he were to reach that, which is just an incredible undertaking as it is...

Borg is just legendary beyond typical boundaries of the sport, you know? He is that one in a billion shot that transcended the general term, "tennis player."

He's an amazing talent on clay...but I just couldn't pull the trigger on giving him the nod as the greatest above Borg, even with the 7 trophies, if you are using standards beyond titles alone.

Clay Death
04-24-2008, 05:24 AM
CD, are you talking pure TENNIS results only? Even if he were to reach that, which is just an incredible undertaking as it is...

Borg is just legendary beyond typical boundaries of the sport, you know? He is that one in a billion shot that transcended the general term, "tennis player."

He's an amazing talent on clay...but I just couldn't pull the trigger on giving him the nod as the greatest above Borg, even with the 7 trophies, if you are using standards beyond titles alone.


i meant only on clay Kitty. i think 7 Roland Garros titles nets Nadal the best ever on clay title.

he is no Borg. not with Borg sitting on 11 slams by 25. 5 Wimby titles is legendary stuff.

GlennMirnyi
04-24-2008, 05:25 AM
i think if he gets his 4th this year, the next 3 are in tha bag. who will ever believe--even for a second--that they can beat him at Roland Garros. all the players think he is damn near invincible on dirt now.

you have to remember that he gets his 4th Roland Garros title just 6 days after his 22nd birthday.

that effectively gives him 7 years to get 3.

Yeah right. Hard to expect logic from you, but there's something called burnout and he'll be suffering from that soon enough we all hope.

Clay Death
04-24-2008, 05:47 AM
Yeah right. Hard to expect logic from you, but there's something called burnout and he'll be suffering from that soon enough we all hope.


you are having problems with simple logic now or what.

if he can get 4 in 4 years, what is to stop him from getting 3 in 7 years.

at just 21 now you dont think he will improve his overall game and accordingly become even more dominant on clay. i am not saying that he will continue to win every single match on clay but he can surely target Roland Garros. time is on his side. he has won 94 of his last 95 matches on clay since 2005. this tells us that he can get it done on dirt.

lets see your logic.

Byrd
04-24-2008, 06:16 AM
Will be known as a good claycourter in his era, but he didn't really have much competition in the form of a fit guga, muster, lendl, etc.

BlueSwan
04-24-2008, 06:36 AM
I believe that he'll go down as the best claycourter of all time. But let's see, maybe he'll burn out after Rome and not even win RG this year.

Kolya
04-24-2008, 06:53 AM
Lets just see how motivated Nadal will be in years to come.

Theres no doubt he has the ability to win more RG but motivation and determination to train is a key factor. Also in recent years Nadal has been suffering more and more injuries so that is another key area to look at in years to come.

Many players have burned out at 24 or 25 after achieving so much so early in their career.

FNT
04-24-2008, 07:04 AM
One of the best claycourters evah. He will burn out early, I'm afraid, but he'll still be one of the best claycourters if he wins 4 FO's in a row.

bokehlicious
04-24-2008, 07:24 AM
Another quality thread by CD :yeah:

JediFed
04-24-2008, 08:31 AM
He will be a trivia question as the only player never to have lost at Roland Garros.

As it is written, so it shall be.

Halba
04-24-2008, 08:34 AM
it appears no one else has any chance of beating nadal on this surface. ever.

Cat123
04-24-2008, 08:42 AM
Unfortunately, he'll be remembered by the masses as the guy who was almost the best in the world but not quite. I'm pretty convinced Djokovic will be the next #1. It's a shame.

leng jai
04-24-2008, 10:04 AM
The pirate shorts connoisseur.

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 10:05 AM
It all depends if he doesnt get tired and injuries dont ruin his career. Everything could happen, he is unbeatable on clay but alot of things can happen in the next 3 years. It will be incredible if we would still be in the same page 3 years from now, Nadal winning every single claycourt tournament he enters with straight sets, however I hope this wont be the case. He needs a rival, I want to see Nadal in 5 sets epics like his 2 5 set matches in rome. Clay without that 5th set loses its purpose, it is supposed to be a war out there not a walk in the park.

Nacho
04-24-2008, 10:09 AM
Unfortunately, he'll be remembered by the masses as the guy who was almost the best in the world but not quite. I'm pretty convinced Djokovic will be the next #1. It's a shame.

but on the other hand, he will also be rememebered as the guy who denied the best player ever a french open title

keroni
04-24-2008, 11:21 AM
^ yes i think that's about right.

without Nadal there, we're really looking at Fed with 14 or 15 GS, with 3 Australian, 5 Wimbledon, 4 US, and 2 or 3 French. as well as 2 real grand slams.

Though I guess this argument just keeps going. Roddick would be one of the greats to play the game, with potentially Wim 04/05, AO 07, USO 06/07, as well as the one he actually got back in 03.

Johnny Groove
04-24-2008, 11:34 AM
Yeah right. Hard to expect logic from you, but there's something called burnout and he'll be suffering from that soon enough we all hope.

I see nothing has changed

azmad_88
04-24-2008, 11:47 AM
we will wait till her retires...but certainly he has accomplished a lot for a 21 year old

sawan66278
04-24-2008, 12:38 PM
His place will be: a moonballer who won several titles on clay in a time without any great claycourter.

Next.

Exactly, WHO do you consider to be great clay courters?

tennis2tennis
04-24-2008, 12:43 PM
what are your thoughts about Nadal's place in history. it is near certain now that he will bag his 4th Roland Garros title just one week past his 22nd birthday. this leaves him with infinity to try to go after Borg`s record of 6. with his 4th Roland Garros title he will become only the second man to win it 4 years in a row since 1914.

If he can win here in Monte Carlo, he will be the first man to do it 4 years in a row since 1914. He is the first one to win in Rome 3 years running. Muster has 3 titles in Rome as well but not in a row.

he seems to be making a little bit of history with his #2 rank as well. i think its like 144 weeks in a row now that he has been ranked #2.

thoughts? can he pass Borg as the greatest clay court player ever lived? what must he do to get better that than he already is on clay?

people are always talking about a short career for Nadal given his style of play. does he have enough time to make his mark?


He's tied with borg right now...because of the evolution of the game and the physicality of his style he's by far a better athlete, not sure if that automatically makes him a better tennis player though

Bascule
04-24-2008, 12:45 PM
His place will be: a moonballer who won several titles on clay in a time without any great claycourter.

Next.

You're pathetic.

Next.

Rogiman
04-24-2008, 12:46 PM
He's missing some RG titles right now to be considered the best clay courter of all times, but he's definitely the most dominant player on clay ever.

DDrago2
04-24-2008, 01:05 PM
Unfortunately, he'll be remembered by the masses as the guy who was almost the best in the world but not quite. I'm pretty convinced Djokovic will be the next #1. It's a shame.

Well this implies he is also something else. I wonder what would that be

BodyServe
04-24-2008, 02:51 PM
^ yes i think that's about right.

without Nadal there, we're really looking at Fed with 14 or 15 GS, with 3 Australian, 5 Wimbledon, 4 US, and 2 or 3 French. as well as 2 real grand slams.

Though I guess this argument just keeps going. Roddick would be one of the greats to play the game, with potentially Wim 04/05, AO 07, USO 06/07, as well as the one he actually got back in 03.

So you think Federer would have beaten Puerta and Djokovic? I seriously doubt about that.
Your reasoning isn't valid.

BIGMARAT
04-24-2008, 03:14 PM
lets count the chicks after the eggs are layed.

For now, Nadal is the best number 2 ever. Also one of the best clay courter of all time.

But- i wouldn't put him to league of players with multiple slams on different surface category. I just really dont think he's win anything BIG on hardcourt.

octatennis
04-24-2008, 04:19 PM
he should be in the top-20 of the best players in tennis history... anyway he can play 8 more years and win everything in the sport.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 04:52 PM
The Monte Carlo - Rome stuff isn't particularly relevant. Borg sometimes didn't play in Monte Carlo and usually skipped Rome (didn't play there after getting peppered with coins in 1978).

I think the best way to tell would be to look either at the RG accomplishments or generally at how many dominant years Nadal puts up. It doesn't help Nadal that his competition on clay is awful - worst drought in memory.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 04:54 PM
He's tied with borg right now...because of the evolution of the game and the physicality of his style he's by far a better athlete, not sure if that automatically makes him a better tennis player though

When he faces as good an athelete as Vilas on clay and completely destroys him then we'll talk. Until then you're pretty much dead wrong.

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 04:56 PM
So you think Federer would have beaten Puerta and Djokovic? I seriously doubt about that.
Your reasoning isn't valid.

Federer would definetly beat Djokovic, Puerta and Ljubicic. I have no doubt that he would, remember that Djokovic hadnt yet become the player he is today. But I still dont like this kind of reasoning, what ifs wont lead us anywhere.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 04:59 PM
Federer would definetly beat Djokovic, Puerta and Ljubicic. I have no doubt that he would, remember that Djokovic hadnt yet become the player he is today. But I still dont like this kind of reasoning, what ifs wont lead us anywhere.

2005 Federer would in no dimension beat a 2005 Puerta.

vucina
04-24-2008, 05:03 PM
I see idiots with their leader GM are writing nonsense again. Nadal is without a doubt, the best dirtballer in history. Borg and other "legends" wouldn't take 2 games in a match against Nadal.
Today's warm-ups are more intense than matches of those dinosaurs.

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 05:04 PM
2005 Federer would in no dimension beat a 2005 Puerta.

I disagree, Federer is an experienced player who has been to something like 8 clay master series finals, 2 RG finals and he has afterall won 12 grand slams. Puerta came out of the blue with a great run, Federer would play smart and would even afford to be outplayed at times just waiting for the oppurtunity to break or take the tiebreak. His experience would make a difference even if Puerta would be playing great tennis. Watch his grand slam finals against Gonzo, Agassi, Baghy, Djokovic and Nadal. He was often outplayed but you cant stand between that man and history unless your name is Rafael Nadal and you are standing on a claycourt.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 05:13 PM
I disagree, Federer is an experienced player who has been to something like 8 clay master series finals, 2 RG finals and he has afterall won 12 grand slams. Puerta came out of the blue with a great run, Federer would play smart and would even afford to be outplayed at times just waiting for the oppurtunity to break or take the tiebreak. His experience would make a difference even if Puerta would be playing great tennis. Watch his finals against Gonzo and Baghy, Djokovic and Nadal last year. He was often outplayed but you cant stand between that man and history unless your name is Rafael Nadal and you are standing on a claycourt.

Your logic is flawed in more ways than one.

In 2005 Federer did not have as much experience on clay under his belt as he does now. And ironically the more experience Roger has the less effective he seems to get.

Secondly, Puerta was an older guy who played on clay all of his life. He didn't exactly come out of nowhere. There is a reason why RG is historically dominated by clay court specialists, some of who put up one great season and not much more. They know how to play on dirt and raise their level.

Thirdly, Puerta was simply better that particular spring. Watch the matches.

Lastly, Gonzalez, Baghdatis are not exactly clay courters.

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 05:17 PM
Your logic is flawed in more ways than one.

In 2005 Federer did not have as much experience on clay under his belt as he does now. And ironically the more experience Roger has the less effective he seems to get.

Secondly, Puerta was an older guy who played on clay all of his life. He didn't exactly come out of nowhere. There is a reason why RG is historically dominated by clay court specialists, some of who put up one great season and not much more. They know how to play on dirt and raise their level.

Thirdly, Puerta was simply better that particular spring. Watch the matches.

Watch Agassi vs Medvedev, great players find a way to win against lesser players when history is in the making. Federer may have been less experienced on clay, but had still won 3 hamburg titles and I think he had been to a rome final, Puerta had achieved far less in his career, so yes he came out of the blue. Roger Federer has won against many claycourt specialists, like Moya, Coria, Ferero, Ferrer, Gaudio many times. In fact I dont remember when a claycourt specialist not named Nadal won a match against Federer on clay, probably it was Kuerten in 2004.

Yes, Puerta was playing better than Federer in roland garros. But that would not be enought, Federer would find a way to stay in the match and then run away with the match.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 05:21 PM
Watch Agassi vs Medvedev, great players find a way to win against lesser players when history is in the making. Federer may have been less experienced on clay, but had still won 3 hamburg titles and I think he had been to a rome final, Puerta had achieved far less in his career, so yes he came out of the blue. Roger Federer has won against many claycourt specialists, like Moya, Coria, Ferero, Ferrer, Gaudio many times. In fact I dont remember when a claycourt specialist not named Nadal won a match against Federer on clay, probably it was Kuerten in 2004.

You can't just provide an irrelevant example of a match out of the blue. There has to be some correlation between Medvedev and Puerta beyond them being supposedly "lesser players". Medvedev was in fact a better clay courter than Agassi. But Medvedev was a guy past his prime who was making one last run. He was also mentally brittle, unlike Puerta in 2005 who showed virtually no weaknesses at Roland Garros.

You see? You have to tie one aspect to another in a way that makes sense. Here it doesn't follow.

As for guys like Moya, Coria, Ferrero, Gaudio - all have been past their prime for years. Ferrer is not a clay court specialist.

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 05:31 PM
You can't just provide an irrelevant example of a match out of the blue. There has to be some correlation between Medvedev and Puerta beyond them being supposedly "lesser plays". Medvedev was in fact a better clay courter than Agassi. But Medvedev was a guy past his prime who was making one last run. He was also mentally brittle, unlike Puerta in 2005 who showed virtually no weaknesses at Roland Garros.

You see? You have to tie one aspect to another in a way that makes sense. Here it doesn't follow.

As for guys like Moya, Coria, Ferrero, Gaudio - all have been past their prime for years. Ferrer is not a clay court specialist.

Puerta was also quite old making a last run in RG, in fact Medvedev was 25 years old when e reached that final against Agassi, 2 years younger than Puerta. Puerta didnt achieve much in his career before 2005, while Medvedev achieved alot before that legendary final against Agassi. Also Medvedev had just defeated Guga in straight sets while Puerta was in one marathon after another against Canas and Davydenko that year. So there are differenses between them, but I actually think Medvedev is a more difficult case than Puerta who I think was rather lucky to survive the marathon against Davydenko who really choked that match away.

I dont think Puerta would have the required energy to beat Federer in a potential final, Federer is too smart to lose such an important match to a player like Puerta, with so little experience on the big stages. He would find a way to defeat him.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 05:35 PM
Puerta was also quite old making a last run in RG, in fact Medvedev was 25 years old when e reached that final against Agassi, 2 years younger than Puerta. Puerta didnt achieve much in his career before 2005, while Medvedev achieved alot before that legendary final against Agassi.

Not comparable. You have to know certain basics about clay history to understand why certain guys burn out earlier and why some do later. Medvedev was an early bloomer who failed to stay in shape late into his career. His last tournament victory was in 1997. The RG run was in 1999.

Puerta conversely had a completely different body. He was a fitness freak and played his best clay court tennis in 2005.

Also Medvedev had just defeated Guga in straight sets while Puerta was in one marathon after another against Canas and Davydenko that year. So there are differenses between them, but I actually think Medvedev is a more difficult case than Puerta who I think was rather lucky to survive the marathon against Davydenko who really choked that match away.

I saw both of those matches. Medvedev beat Kuerten on a very windy day, because he played better under those conditions. Puerta overcame Davydenko because he was fitter.

I dont think Puerta wouldnt have the required energy to beat Federer in a potential final.

No one with any knowledge of clay court tennis would agree with you.

cherry2008
04-24-2008, 05:36 PM
but on the other hand, he will also be rememebered as the guy who denied the best player ever a french open title

Bingo!

cherry2008
04-24-2008, 05:43 PM
2005 Federer would in no dimension beat a 2005 Puerta.

I disagree. Federer would have beaten Puerta. Puerta is not Nadal.

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 05:53 PM
Not comparable. You have to know certain basics about clay history to understand why certain guys burn out earlier and why some do later. Medvedev was an early bloomer who failed to stay in shape late into his career. His last tournament victory was in 1997. The RG run was in 1999.

Puerta conversely had a completely different body. He was a fitness freak and played his best clay court tennis in 2005.



I saw both of those matches. Medvedev beat Kuerten on a very windy day, because he played better under those conditions. Puerta overcame Davydenko because he was fitter.



No one with any knowledge of clay court tennis would agree with you.

I saw Medvedev vs Kuerten and even if it was windy, Guga was outplayed and maybe didnt play his best tennis but still it was shocking to see Guga lose this way on clay against anyone in any conditions. Medvedev was playing the tournament of his life and only lost the final because Agassi was on a mission to write tennis history.

If Puerta would have the energy or not is not the big question but the question is if he would have the mental strength to not only outplay the best player in the world in the most important match of his life, but also win the important points of the match. Remember that Puerta had never won anything even remotely important in his career and neither had he been to any big finals.

Between 2001 and 2005 he had only won 1 tournament which was Casablanca and he had been to some mickey mouse finals. Puerta was a 2nd rated claycourt player who played mostly challangers most part of the season and then played some clay atp tournaments to lose in early rounds against greater clay courters, but in RG 2005 he suddenly was playing the best tennis in his life and beat more accomplished players than himself, but somewhere that must come to an end for cinderella stories like Puertas and it is often against truly great players like Federer or Nadal.

Sorry, but the likes of Federer and Nadal are on a different level alltogether.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 06:02 PM
I saw Medvedev vs Kuerten and even if it was windy, Guga was outplayed and maybe didnt play his best tennis but still it was shocking to see Guga lose this way on clay against anyone in any conditions. Medvedev was playing the tournament of his life and only lost the final because Agassi was on a mission to write tennis history.

Medvedev played great throughout that tournament and should have annihilated Agassi. He lost because of his history of being mentally weak. Agassi though had been in two French Open finals in the past and that helped him. Federer in 2005 made great strides in his clay court game but was simply not good enough to win that tournament. With Nadal or without.

If Puerta would have the energy or not is not the big question but the question is if he would have the mental strength to not only outplay the best player in the world in the most important match of his life, but also win the important points of the match. Remember that Puerta had never won anything even remotely important in his career and neither had he been to any big finals. Between 2001 and 2005 he had only won 1 tournament which was Casablanca and been to some mickey mouse finals.

I don't deny that Roger is one of the best players in the open era - arguably the best. But clay is a different creature. Roger quite simply is not the player he is on clay that he is on grass on hardcourts. Puerta at Roland Garros played much better, much more mentally tough than Federer. He also had a game that troubled Rafa more than Federer's. Roger probably played his best clay court tennis in Rome in 2006, which was probably the only time I looked at his game and thought to myself that he was worthy of being a Roland Garros champion right there. Unfortunately he couldn't handle the pressure at the French weeks later. Roger, quite simply, is not deserving of winning the French. And that's the way it will go down in history. Federer fans can hypothesize what Roger would or would not have done without Nadal, but the fact remains that even with Nadal this is one of the weaker clay court eras in the Open Era. Because of this Roger's results actually look better than they should on clay.

Bascule
04-24-2008, 06:14 PM
CyBorg, get back the Zappa avatar with the finger in his nose!:devil: It's unique! I've hardly recognized you.

Adler
04-24-2008, 06:15 PM
His place in history? Somewhere between Frederick the Great and Lee Harvey Oswald

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 06:17 PM
I don't deny that Roger is one of the best players in the open era - arguably the best. But clay is a different creature. Roger quite simply is not the player he is on clay that he is on grass on hardcourts. Puerta at Roland Garros played much better, much more mentally tough than Federer. He also had a game that troubled Rafa more than Federer's. Roger probably played his best clay court tennis in Rome in 2006, which was probably the only time I looked at his game and thought to myself that he was worthy of being a Roland Garros champion right there. Unfortunately he couldn't handle the pressure at the French weeks later. Roger, quite simply, is not deserving of winning the French. And that's the way it will go down in history. Federer fans can hypothesize what Roger would or would not have done without Nadal, but the fact remains that even with Nadal this is one of the weaker clay court eras in the Open Era. Because of this Roger's results actually look better than they should on clay.

I am not a real fan of Federer and I do think his clay tennis looks limited. But then I watch players like Ferrer, Davydenko and Almagro and how good they play on clay and how good they move, when it is time to face Federer it seems like Federer just finds a way to win the match anyway, with mental strength, great tactics and a good hold serve on clay (reminds me of how good Guga held his serve on clay). There is no denying in that a few years ago there were far greater claycourt players than today, more specialists and more depth. Anyway, I dont think this era is weak, it just seems like it is weak because the late 90s was the best clay era ever, with more depth and more different styles and players from all over the world. If you watch the time when Chang won RG, or Courier and Gomes in the shift of the last decade that was a weak era. Today we have maybe the greatest claycourter of all time (atleast 2nd best), an alltime great who is a really great player on every surface and other great allcourt players like Nalbandian and Djokovic. Then we have a quite avarage field of players who prefer claycourts but are not specialists with Ferrer, Almagro, Davydenko, Andreev and some older claycourters who are past their prime but not useless.

So I think people exagerate when they say that clay tennis is terrible today, it is just different and less specialised. Worse than a decade ago, but better than some other eras like the early 70s and early 90s.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 06:25 PM
I am not a real fan of Federer and I do think his clay tennis looks limited. But then I watch players like Ferrer, Davydenko and Almagro and how good they play on clay and how good they move, when it is time to face Federer it seems like Federer just finds a way to win the match anyway, with mental strength, great tactics and a good hold serve on clay (reminds me of how good Guga held his serve on clay). There is no denying in that a few years ago there were far greater claycourt players than today, more specialists and more depth. Anyway, I dont think this era is weak, it just seems like it is weak because the late 90s was the best clay era ever, with more depth and more different styles and players from all over the world. If you watch the time when Chang won RG, or Courier and Gomes in the shift of the last decade that was a weak era. Today we have maybe the greatest claycourter of all time (atleast 2nd best), an alltime great who is a really great player on every surface and other great allcourt players like Nalbandian and Djokovic. Then we have a quite avarage field of players who prefer claycourts but are not specialists with Ferrer, Almagro, Davydenko, Andreev and some older claycourters who are past their prime but not useless.

So I think people exagerate when they say that clay tennis is terrible today, it is just different and less specialised. Worse than a decade ago, but better than some other eras like the early 70s and early 90s.

When Almagro, Ferrer and Andreev are the supposed cream of the clay crop you know you've got a problem.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 06:26 PM
CyBorg, get back the Zappa avatar with the finger in his nose!:devil: It's unique! I've hardly recognized you.

You know. I think you're right. I like this one, but it's a bit small.

Albop
04-24-2008, 06:28 PM
i think if he gets his 4th this year, the next 3 are in tha bag. who will ever believe--even for a second--that they can beat him at Roland Garros. all the players think he is damn near invincible on dirt now.

you have to remember that he gets his 4th Roland Garros title just 6 days after his 22nd birthday.

that effectively gives him 7 years to get 3.

That's nonsense :lol:

peterparker
04-24-2008, 06:31 PM
An obvious super-talent, speed, consistency, awesome hands. He hit this one shot in the AO this year where he was jammed sprinting into midcourt when the other player was at the net; capt. claymerica just lofted the ball in a nice easy arc over the other guy's head. The control he has on the ball with that grip he uses, off the top of my head I can't think of any recent clay court star who has that feel (certainly not ferrero, kuerten, moya, costa, agassi, muster, the only guy close is coria imo-I don't know anything about bruguera).

Historically nadal is really an experiment for evaluating how different the surfaces are in the modern modern era. Fortunately the gods have helped him out by slowing wimby down. Given how talented he is, if he can't even win one GS off clay imo it will be a real testament to the extreme nature of the clay surface.

Parker

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 06:48 PM
When Almagro, Ferrer and Andreev are the supposed cream of the clay crop you know you've got a problem.

No, the greatest clay courtplayers today are as I said no real specialists, there I would include Federer, Nadal, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Djokovic and Ferrer. I think these 6 would be really good in any era, but Nadal ofcourse is at a different universe than the rest.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 08:10 PM
That's nonsense :lol:

It's as easy as picking arse.

Bascule
04-24-2008, 08:15 PM
You know. I think you're right. I like this one, but it's a bit small.

Then pay for a PREMIUM MEMBER.:devil: At least you can...but, Serbian posters can't use the pay pal.:rolleyes:

All_Slam_Andre
04-24-2008, 08:17 PM
I agree that the current claycourt generation is pretty weak. Nadal is awesome, and I would rank him as the 2nd best player on clay that I've ever seen, ahead of Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten, Vilas, Muster etc, but still way behind Borg. However the less said about his competition the better. Federer is a good player on clay, and is much better on the surface than Sampras was for instance, but I don't think he is particularly amazing on the red dirt. He has been able to play hardcourt tennis on the surface and still beat everyone on it apart from Nadal over the last few years. Novak Djokovic plays exactly the same way on hard, clay and grass without altering his game at all, and still regularly goes deep in big tournaments regardless of the surface. Oh dear.
The strength in depth on hard is outstanding, but on clay and grass, not so much.

JediFed
04-24-2008, 08:25 PM
No, Federer isn't amazing on clay, but wouldn't he be in the top ten of claycourters? 4 TMCs on clay, 7 titles, 2 RG finals and a SF?

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 08:41 PM
No, Federer isn't amazing on clay, but wouldn't he be in the top ten of claycourters? 4 TMCs on clay, 7 titles, 2 RG finals and a SF?

Let's see... open era only, I'd rate these guys ahead of Fed:

(in no specific order) Borg, Lendl, Nadal, Kuerten, Wilander, Vilas, Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Ferrero, Nastase, Panatta, Moya, Roche, Laver, Corretja, Agassi, Rios, Ramirez, Orantes, Albert Costa, Medvedev and there are a few close calls like Kafelnikov.

Some were unlucky to play in very competitive eras, like Corretja. I didn't count Gimeno even though he did win the French in '72.

JediFed
04-24-2008, 08:47 PM
That puts him around #20 or so.

I think that's a bit underrating.

I'll give you

Borg, Lendl, Nadal, Kuerten, Wilander, Vilas, Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Ferrero, Nastase, Moya, Laver, Agassi, Orantes. That would put him at 15.

stebs
04-24-2008, 08:50 PM
Let's see... open era only, I'd rate these guys ahead of Fed:

In acheivements or in level on clay terms?

l_mac
04-24-2008, 08:55 PM
Best tennis ass ever.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 08:57 PM
In acheivements or in level on clay terms?

I never look at achievements alone, because some eras have better competition than others.

For example, it's hard to argue that Federer is better than Corretja was, but if one argues based on achievements alone one can make a succinct argument for Federer. So this is why it helps to watch the guys I think.

stebs
04-24-2008, 09:16 PM
I never look at achievements alone, because some eras have better competition than others.

For example, it's hard to argue that Federer is better than Corretja was, but if one argues based on achievements alone one can make a succinct argument for Federer. So this is why it helps to watch the guys I think.

I remember discussions with you in the past about Federer on clay and while you underestimate him on the surface in relation to a lot of players it is fair enough when you have people on here who think he would be winning RG's by the hatful against anyone but Nadal. I mean Federer - Corretja for example I would say Federer is better than Alex on the stuff in both acheivements and performances simply due to consistency. Considering the game Corretja played he was not poor on that front but still he was beating guys of a particular level 'often' where Federer would defeat them always and yes he has more good wins than Federer but I think it's an area which is unfair to consider when you think about the fact that Federer between '05 MC and '07 Rome only lost to Nadal on clay. He was beating the competition except Nadal and Corretja at his best still had losses to people of a lower level than some guys Federer was beating.

Edit: Also, if we are looking at game, I don't think Agassi was better than Federer on clay. The other guys I have no problem with though I am not 100% convinced about Moya

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 09:38 PM
I remember discussions with you in the past about Federer on clay and while you underestimate him on the surface in relation to a lot of players it is fair enough when you have people on here who think he would be winning RG's by the hatful against anyone but Nadal. I mean Federer - Corretja for example I would say Federer is better than Alex on the stuff in both acheivements and performances simply due to consistency. Considering the game Corretja played he was not poor on that front but still he was beating guys of a particular level 'often' where Federer would defeat them always and yes he has more good wins than Federer but I think it's an area which is unfair to consider when you think about the fact that Federer between '05 MC and '07 Rome only lost to Nadal on clay. He was beating the competition except Nadal and Corretja at his best still had losses to people of a lower level than some guys Federer was beating.

Edit: Also, if we are looking at game, I don't think Agassi was better than Federer on clay. The other guys I have no problem with though I am not 100% convinced about Moya

Good reasoning from your part. I mean it isnt like Corretja, Costa, Medvedev and company would be able to get to 8 master series finals on clay, 2 RG finals, 1 RG semifinal and 4 master series titles in todays era, even if the competition is weaker than in their era. I mean someone like Corretja nn his prime would still not be able to win against Ferrer, Monaco, Almagro, old Moya, Davydenko, Ferrero past his prime, Coria and Nalbandian many times without even losing a match to them. We are talking about around 15 straight victories against really good claycourters between 05 and 07 for Federer. What most of the players that cyborg had on his list didnt have was Federers consistency and they could lose against players far worse than the players I have mentioned. To say that the likes of Corretja and Medvedev were better on clay than Federer because their era was better doesnt make any sense to me.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 10:40 PM
I remember discussions with you in the past about Federer on clay and while you underestimate him on the surface in relation to a lot of players it is fair enough when you have people on here who think he would be winning RG's by the hatful against anyone but Nadal. I mean Federer - Corretja for example I would say Federer is better than Alex on the stuff in both acheivements and performances simply due to consistency. Considering the game Corretja played he was not poor on that front but still he was beating guys of a particular level 'often' where Federer would defeat them always and yes he has more good wins than Federer but I think it's an area which is unfair to consider when you think about the fact that Federer between '05 MC and '07 Rome only lost to Nadal on clay. He was beating the competition except Nadal and Corretja at his best still had losses to people of a lower level than some guys Federer was beating.

Edit: Also, if we are looking at game, I don't think Agassi was better than Federer on clay. The other guys I have no problem with though I am not 100% convinced about Moya

Federer's consistently is good on clay - I will give you that one. A lot hinges on how much you value this consistency.

But clay is a surface where consistency seems to be in short supply. We've had guys like Magnus Norman put up one great year and then completely fall off. There are many, many more like him. Guys who put in the work and suddenly emerge to beat one guy after another. It's a very different notion than consistent dominance on a grass court, for example, where one develops a touch and maintains it from year to year. That's where 'genius' rules.

But the clay courts demand something more than that. Yes, a genius is a factor. But there is also a tremendous demand for resilience that differs considerably from other surfaces. The kind of thing that can only be done once, sometimes twice. Seldom more than that. Federer lacks this. And it's not because of a lack of genius.

What made a guy like Moya great was not necessarily consistency, but rather this ability to put together several outstanding runs on the way to big clay court titles. I think that you are making a big mistake by not differentiating between the challenge before a clay courter and the challenge before players on other surfaces. Winning a big clay court event is kind of like prevailing in a marathon. You can't simply find a level. You find it and then rediscover and rediscover it again and when you don't have it you still fight to win without it. It's the ultimate challenge of resilience. What's impressive about guys like Nadal and Borg is that they were able to win event after event, but most clay courters are more spotty - they win a big event and then lose early in a couple after that.

Roger had one huge win - that was in Hamburg last year. He beat Nadal there and some decent opponents before that. It's not quite sufficient in my books to elevate him above many of the guys on this list (mostly because of when the event was scheduled and the obvious fatigue of his opponent), but it helps his case. At the end of the day you have to win these things.

Corretja is perhaps a close call. I think that one can make a case for Federer over him. But one can also make a case that Coria was better. Ultimately it's hard to rate Roger within a top-20.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 10:51 PM
What most of the players that cyborg had on his list didnt have was Federers consistency and they could lose against players far worse than the players I have mentioned.

You can't argue for consistency when Federer has not one a single one of: a) French Open, b) Monte Carlo, c) Rome.

Boris Becker was a consistent finalist and semifinalist in his better years as a clay courter. I don't recall anyone making a case for him to be listed higher than the likes of Corretja. The guy was a decent player; for a while quite a consistent one, but he didn't win a big one. Not a single big one. Even though he was in more than one final.

Kitty de Sade
04-24-2008, 11:06 PM
Best tennis ass ever.

Oh yeah- that settles the argument then. Time to put this thread on lockdown.

This is coming from someone who compared Gaudio to Michael Bolton no less. :rolleyes: :rolls:

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 11:19 PM
You can't argue for consistency when Federer has not one a single one of: a) French Open, b) Monte Carlo, c) Rome.

Boris Becker was a consistent finalist and semifinalist in his better years as a clay courter. I don't recall anyone making a case for him to be listed higher than the likes of Corretja. The guy was a decent player; for a while quite a consistent one, but he didn't win a big one. Not a single big one. Even though he was in more than one final.

Corretja didnt win a singe of: French Open, b) Monte Carlo c) Hamburg

And neither did he have an excuse named Nadal to not win any of them. Federer has more master series than the likes of Medvedev and Corretja and he has to live at he same era as the best or 2nd best claycourter of all time. He has been to a final 2 times in every big claycourt event, that is alot of good runs. I doubt Corretja or Medvedev would do anything better than Federer about Nadal if they had played in this era.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 11:26 PM
Corretja didnt win a singe of: French Open, b) Monte Carlo c) Hamburg

And neither did he have an excuse named Nadal to not win any of them. Federer has more master series than the likes of Medvedev and Corretja and he has to live at he same era as the best or 2nd best claycourter of all time. He has been to a final 2 times in every big claycourt event, that is alot of good runs. I doubt Corretja or Medvedev would do anything close to as good as Federer about Nadal if they had played in this era.

As I have said, you can make a case for Federer over Corretja based on the results, even though Monte Carlo is a much more prestigious tournament than Hamburg, which has been the ugly step-sister for many years now.

Again, no one with any knowledge of clay court tennis would argue that Federer is better on dirt than Medvedev. PMK is Innocent would have a nice laugh here.

platinum
04-24-2008, 11:28 PM
Best tennis ass ever.

Agree. Most FUCKABLE tennis player ever :hearts::hearts::hearts::hearts:

Pigsarestupid
04-24-2008, 11:31 PM
As I have said, you can make a case for Federer over Corretja based on the results, even though Monte Carlo is a much more prestigious tournament than Hamburg, which has been the ugly step-sister for many years now.

Again, no one with any knowledge of clay court tennis would argue that Federer is better on dirt than Medvedev. PMK is Innocent would have a nice laugh here.

Well, I dont care if he would laught or not. I dont know why you bring up what someone else might think about this, we are talking about it with each other. I have my opinions and unless you make a great argument why Medvedev was greater than Federer I wont change my opinion that is based on what I have seen from both and what they have accomplished.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 11:42 PM
Well, I dont care if he would laught or not. I dont know why you bring up what someone else might think about this, we are talking about it with each other. I have my opinions and unless you make a great argument why Medvedev was greater than Federer I wont change my opinion that is based on what I have seen from both and what they have accomplished.

You are entitled to whatever opinion you like. Peak Medvedev was a better mover on clay, handled topspin better on clay and was more consistent and steady from both wings.

maskedmuffin
04-24-2008, 11:43 PM
Well, I dont care if he would laught or not. I dont know why you bring up what someone else might think about this, we are talking about it with each other. I have my opinions and unless you make a great argument why Medvedev was greater than Federer I wont change my opinion that is based on what I have seen from both and what they have accomplished.


its because cyborg cant, he has his finger up his nose.

The only thing "laughable" is claiming medvedev over federer on clay. Guys are faster, stronger, fitter nowadays and require better reactions and stamina to play in sed game. Nadal is an absolute beast on clay, and nalbandian on his form would rip medvedev a new one. Beresetagui would be completely lost running down and hitting his hawaiian forehand grip shot against the top claycourters nowadays.


He just does not want to accept evolution, thus his finger up his nose. Funny thing to because he has a most innovative artist in his avatar.

And regarding stats, he doesnt really have much to argue with that as well. Federer wipes the court with most of the players he mentioned based on stats, and all anyone needs is 2 freaking eyes to watch the athelticism and pace of todays game to see that federer would be backward compatible, while medvedev would hardly be considered forward compatbile into this era

Its about weapons, its about breaking down shots, it is a bout guile and skill; Even the temperamental and oftentimes stubborn federer would out-talent a sly guy like medvedev. Hell a decently intelligent player in murray can be pushed around like a gnat on this surface by players who have bigger shots and less "junk" in their strokes (djokovic, nadal, nalbandian).


Its really quite simple, put medvedev and his intelligent counterpunching, savvy game at the pinnacle of his height against federer at the pinnacle of his geniousness on this court, and you will see quite quickly that no amount of fight and resolve can turn around the talent disparity in actual shot penetration.

Nadal is on a whole different level than claycourters like corretja and medvedev.

And stop talking about medvedev's "topspin" Give federer the ole pro stafftour 90 racquet and he will get on top of that topspin easy. This is not guga we are talking about, it's medvedev.


Medvedev was a solid player who played nice on this surface. Put him on the same court as davydenko though, not with federer/nadal/djokovic. His weapons are more on par with the former, not the trio of latters

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 11:46 PM
The only thing "laughable" is claiming medvedev over federer on clay. Guys are faster, stronger, fitter nowadays and require better reactions and stamina to play in sed game. Nadal is an absolute beast on clay, and nalbandian on his form would rip medvedev a new one. Beresetagui would be completely lost running down and hitting his hawaiian forehand grip shot against the top claycourters nowadays.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w186/sexyspongebob2007/litsaw4.jpg

His post makes everything sound so simple he could start a religion around it.

P.S. I love these Lithgow pics. I am using them until I run out.

Clay Death
04-25-2008, 12:08 AM
Federer's consistently is good on clay - I will give you that one. A lot hinges on how much you value this consistency.

But clay is a surface where consistency seems to be in short supply. We've had guys like Magnus Norman put up one great year and then completely fall off. There are many, many more like him. Guys who put in the work and suddenly emerge to beat one guy after another. It's a very different notion than consistent dominance on a grass court, for example, where one develops a touch and maintains it from year to year. That's where 'genius' rules.

But the clay courts demand something more than that. Yes, a genius is a factor. But there is also a tremendous demand for resilience that differs considerably from other surfaces. The kind of thing that can only be done once, sometimes twice. Seldom more than that. Federer lacks this. And it's not because of a lack of genius.

What made a guy like Moya great was not necessarily consistency, but rather this ability to put together several outstanding runs on the way to big clay court titles. I think that you are making a big mistake by not differentiating between the challenge before a clay courter and the challenge before players on other surfaces. Winning a big clay court event is kind of like prevailing in a marathon. You can't simply find a level. You find it and then rediscover and rediscover it again and when you don't have it you still fight to win without it. It's the ultimate challenge of resilience. What's impressive about guys like Nadal and Borg is that they were able to win event after event, but most clay courters are more spotty - they win a big event and then lose early in a couple after that.

Roger had one huge win - that was in Hamburg last year. He beat Nadal there and some decent opponents before that. It's not quite sufficient in my books to elevate him above many of the guys on this list (mostly because of when the event was scheduled and the obvious fatigue of his opponent), but it helps his case. At the end of the day you have to win these things.

Corretja is perhaps a close call. I think that one can make a case for Federer over him. But one can also make a case that Coria was better. Ultimately it's hard to rate Roger within a top-20.


has anybody considered the fact that had Nadal not been around or had he been a clown and a miserable coward like Davydenko, Fed would have had 3 French Open crowns already.

CyBorg
04-25-2008, 12:11 AM
has anybody considered the fact that had Nadal not been around or had he been a clown and a miserable coward like Davydenko, Fed would have had 3 French Open crowns already.

Oh, yes. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

Clay Death
04-25-2008, 12:21 AM
Oh, yes. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.


you just worry about your nostrils. you can worry about the balls next time.

RogerFan82
04-25-2008, 12:25 AM
you just worry about your nostrils. you can worry about the balls next time.

:haha::haha::haha:

Clay Death
04-25-2008, 12:26 AM
:haha::haha::haha:

:haha::haha::haha:

CyBorg
04-25-2008, 12:34 AM
you just worry about your nostrils. you can worry about the balls next time.

I have two hands. I've got it all covered.

Clay Death
04-25-2008, 12:36 AM
I have two hands. I've got it all covered.


:haha::haha::haha::haha:

RogerFan82
04-25-2008, 12:43 AM
I have two hands. I've got it all covered.

Nice response!!!!:haha::haha: This exchange, between you two, is awesome. :yeah::yeah:

Clay Death
04-25-2008, 01:01 AM
Nice response!!!!:haha::haha: This exchange, between you two, is awesome. :yeah::yeah:

we aim to please and keep the board relaxed.

FedFan_2007
04-25-2008, 01:17 AM
If Nadal retired now, he'd be remembered as an all-time great, mostly on clay.

CyBorg
04-25-2008, 01:21 AM
Nice response!!!!:haha::haha: This exchange, between you two, is awesome. :yeah::yeah:

http://i30.tinypic.com/3520ug4.gif

Action Jackson
04-25-2008, 02:21 AM
When Almagro, Ferrer and Andreev are the supposed cream of the clay crop you know you've got a problem.

As good as Federer is for an attacking player on clay for which this is not in doubt, especially compared to the previous fast court stars like Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Krajicek, McEnroe Stich ( best on clay out of that lot). When Federer is the currently 2nd best on clay, that says it all.

This will be my last post on this thread, as I already answered the thread question.

Halba
04-25-2008, 02:23 AM
federer is 7-0 on clay this yr. he is also very special player on clay.

Johnny Groove
04-25-2008, 02:32 AM
I have two hands. I've got it all covered.

Good thing you arent using just one hand.

2 handed is better

FedFan_2007
04-25-2008, 02:32 AM
Nadal is 2-0 on clay, what's your point? He's 107-4(96%) from January 1, 2005 to present on the dirt. OVerall:

133-13(91%) on clay for his career. Incredible.

Clay Death
04-25-2008, 04:02 AM
Good thing you arent using just one hand.

2 handed is better

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

Clay Death
04-25-2008, 04:05 AM
If Nadal retired now, he'd be remembered as an all-time great, mostly on clay.


that record would be even better of the fucker wouldnt be injured so much and was actually a little fitter.

still winning 95 out of last 96 matches is a legendary scenario.