Weakest clay court era in history [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Weakest clay court era in history

Pages : [1] 2

LinkMage
06-08-2008, 03:54 PM
When a muppet like this UE machine (Fed) is the 2nd best player on the surface you know there is something really wrong.

Where are the Muster's or Guga's? They would have given Nadal more trouble than this Fedclown.

Burrow
06-08-2008, 03:57 PM
I have thought this for a while, Federer is a very good clay court player but the rest are lagging behind.

Before, clay tennis was more of less heavy top spin players with good movement and a big engine just like Nadal, he has no big rivals right now, I am just waiting for Bellucci to come through.

miura
06-08-2008, 03:57 PM
Heard of off-days? Federer is not playing his best. Nadal would have trashed any of the former champs as well. The game is evolving and it's a large difference from the game today from the game 20 years ago.

navy75
06-08-2008, 03:58 PM
I disagree. I just think Nadal is truly that good. His consistency, topspin, and angles are the best I've ever seen on clay (and I'm always the first to refer to the "Borg era"). On top of that, his serve has become a force now as well. The way he just thrashes his opponents is really something, and he hardly gives a single point away. The sickest part is that I still get the feeling he hasn't reached his full potential yet.

We're watching the best clay court player of all time folks, plain and simple...

Halba
06-08-2008, 04:01 PM
i have run out of superlatives. this is "in the zone" tennis.

rocketassist
06-08-2008, 04:15 PM
Guga, Costa, Corretja, Bruguera, Muster, Courier, Ferrero in 03, all better than Fed on clay.

marcRD
06-08-2008, 04:16 PM
No, just greatest claycourt player who ever lived making this era look very weak. In fact this claycourt era is not great and not bad, just avarage.

Kolya
06-08-2008, 04:17 PM
Maybe Rafa would still win a lot but I'm sure the clay specialists from the 90's can beat Rafa a couple of times.

adee-gee
06-08-2008, 04:21 PM
Nadal would rip any clay court era to shreds. An absolute genius.

JediFed
06-08-2008, 04:22 PM
Guga, Costa, Corretja, Bruguera, Muster, Courier, Ferrero in 03, all better than Fed on clay.


None of them made three finals in a row, or 4 semis in a row. Why is that? If they were such good claycourters, why were they all so inconsistant?

I'll give you Guga, Bruguera, and Courier, but the rest aren't better then Federer.

Let me put it this way. Nadal is 28-0 on clay. He has never lost his entire career there. Next year he will break Borg's record of 32-0 at RG.

He has a serious claim now to be the best claycourter of all time. He already broke Borg's streaks on clay with 81 straight.

Now Federer? He's only ever lost to Nadal at the FO in 4 years.

CyBorg
06-08-2008, 04:22 PM
Yup.

rocketassist
06-08-2008, 04:23 PM
None of them made three finals in a row, or 4 semis in a row. Why is that? If they were such good claycourters, why were they all so inconsistant?

I'll give you Guga, Bruguera, and Courier, but the rest aren't better then Federer.

Let me put it this way. Nadal is 28-0 on clay. He has never lost his entire career there. Next year he will break Borg's record of 28-0 at RG.

He has a serious claim now to be the best claycourter of all time. He already broke Borg's streaks on clay with 81 straight.

Because, it was a tougher era. And they didn't have to play chokers and mugs in the latter stages like the PMK and Monfils.

Auscon
06-08-2008, 04:27 PM
I think Fed would romp plenty of other great claycourters from the past when he's not having a shocker of a day. Yes, good players can have a really, really bad day.

HarryMan
06-08-2008, 04:28 PM
This is the weakest clay court era because there is one genius that makes the other good players look really pathetic out there.

Rafael Nadal in a few more years will be the greatest clay courter of all time, he is fucking animal on this surface.

jcempire
06-08-2008, 04:30 PM
When a muppet like this UE machine (Fed) is the 2nd best player on the surface you know there is something really wrong.

Where are the Muster's or Guga's? They would have given Nadal more trouble than this Fedclown.

I agree, you can be right.

BUT Who knows, we never see they play out.

Black Adam
06-08-2008, 04:30 PM
That forehand was almost as aggressive as it was back in 2005. The scary part is that you feel that he is only going to improve.

JediFed
06-08-2008, 04:31 PM
Maybe Rafa would still win a lot but I'm sure the clay specialists from the 90's can beat Rafa a couple of times.


Could they beat Borg?

groundstroke
06-08-2008, 04:31 PM
Players like Nadal, Fed, Guga do not come every day. You'll have to wait for a new fantastic clay courter.

leng jai
06-08-2008, 04:32 PM
This is the weakest clay court era because there is one genius that makes the other good players look really pathetic out there.

Rafael Nadal in a few more years will be the greatest clay courter of all time, he is fucking animal on this surface.

Nadal is amazing but don't be delusional, this is an era of A Grade Clay Mugs.

maskedmuffin
06-08-2008, 04:33 PM
nadal dares you to come in and passes you on clay with sick shots. there is no doubt to me he is the clay GOAT

the real loser here is borg, his records being smashed.

Ivanatis
06-08-2008, 04:34 PM
There was no player with clay court abilities like Nadal, when Kuerten and Muster were cruising. They weren't clearly better than Federer or Djokovic.

JediFed
06-08-2008, 04:39 PM
Because, it was a tougher era. And they didn't have to play chokers and mugs in the latter stages like the PMK and Monfils.


Oh, really?

How does that explain away their inability to reach SFs?

Ferraro got ousted by Andreev in the second round.

Corretja by Meligeni in the QF.

Costa by Vinny Ice Ice baby.

Muster got trashed by Rafter in straights, and his win, he was number 5 and didn't play any of the higher seeds.

*bunny*
06-08-2008, 05:16 PM
None of them made three finals in a row, or 4 semis in a row. Why is that?
Ferrero reached semi in 2000 and 2001, losing to Guga both times, then he made finals in 2002 and 2003 the year he won. Check your fact please. :)

Oh, really?

How does that explain away their inability to reach SFs?

Ferraro got ousted by Andreev in the second round.
Who's Ferraro? ;) Anyway, if you mean JCF, did you watch that match in 2004? He had a serious rib injury and was in no shape to play a decent match. He couldn't serve or rip FH. It was a miracle he got passed Haas in R1 and it didn't need Andreev to take him out that year, sadly. So it's not a good example to show the weakness of clay court tennis.

Back to your point, I think Rafa is really a great player and he is still improving. He has evolved into a much more upgraded model this year and it's up to his opposition to try to give him a match on clay.
But I would have liked to watch Rafa vs any of Guga, Muster, JCF in their top form. At least it would be a very close match. (JCF's win over Rafa in Rome has been diminished because of Rafa's blisters, but JC was carrying an injury that time too. Imagine what he could have than in 2002/2003)

Fedex
06-08-2008, 05:22 PM
I do think this is weaker era of clay court tennis; much less depth than in the past. That being sad, Nadal would've beaten any clay court player of the past today.

StevoTG
06-08-2008, 05:25 PM
It's best that we just face the truth, Nadal is simply sublime, too good and this weak-era stuff is bull.

MrChopin
06-08-2008, 05:26 PM
It's a shame that you didn't have the match thread ready at 0-4 in the third. We could have been spared this thread.

JediFed
06-08-2008, 05:32 PM
Back to your point, I think Rafa is really a great player and he is still improving. He has evolved into a much more upgraded model this year and it's up to his opposition to try to give him a match on clay.

But I would have liked to watch Rafa vs any of Guga, Muster, JCF in their top form. At least it would be a very close match. (JCF's win over Rafa in Rome has been diminished because of Rafa's blisters, but JC was carrying an injury that time too. Imagine what he could have than in 2002/2003)


JCF is a puzzle for me. The only difference is that he has the extra SF and not the F, and that it took him awhile to win RG for the first time.

Him I am more on the fence. I think Federer is very unlucky to find his form on clay at the same time as Nadal's dominance. The fact that Ferrero (corrected spelling) has done nothing since, no SFs, QFs or Fs speaks volumes.

I honestly don't think Rafa should kill himself on Hard courts this year. I worry he will injure himself and burn out like Borg did.

marcRD
06-08-2008, 05:33 PM
People must be completely delusional to think claycourt specialists from the 90s would do any good against Rafa, watch the game and rewatch the players from that era. Watch the differense in power and spin, watch Nadals passing shots and defense and compare it to Muster or Kafelnikov. It is a joke to compare them to Nadal. Even considering the technology edge Nadal has. Just watch their bodies, compare them physicaly.

BigJohn
06-08-2008, 05:44 PM
No, just greatest claycourt player who ever lived making this era look very weak.

Nadal would rip any clay court era to shreds. An absolute genius.


It's best that we just face the truth, Nadal is simply sublime, too good and this weak-era stuff is bull.

Words of wisdom. Have you seen Nadal play the last 2 weeks? Nobody, absolutely no one, would have had a chance.

ReturnWinner
06-08-2008, 09:48 PM
Guga, Costa, Corretja, Bruguera, Muster, Courier, Ferrero in 03, all better than Fed on clay.

do not think so, likely just Muster and Guga . Ferrero and Costa better than Federer is laughable.

GlennMirnyi
06-08-2008, 09:50 PM
I've been calling this for 2 years now.

Weakest era ever on clay.

scoobs
06-08-2008, 09:53 PM
I'm sure those people who lived through Borg strolling to the RG title 6 times must have thought it was a weak era too.

Perhaps that's the way it works every time someone comes along who sets a new standard - it takes a while for the rest to close the gap.

GlennMirnyi
06-08-2008, 09:55 PM
Of course Borg's era was a weak era. Never in doubt.

ReturnWinner
06-08-2008, 09:56 PM
I agree this era is not the strongest but i do not think its the worst,

but look at the 1996 draw.

GlennMirnyi
06-08-2008, 09:57 PM
Look at the 2008 draw.

rocketassist
06-08-2008, 09:57 PM
I'm sure those people who lived through Borg strolling to the RG title 6 times must have thought it was a weak era too.

Perhaps that's the way it works every time someone comes along who sets a new standard - it takes a while for the rest to close the gap.

Borg had Vilas- Nadal has clowns.

Merton
06-08-2008, 10:01 PM
I posted this elsewhere, but it is relevant here. Just take a look at the RG quarterfinals in 2000:

Squillari-Al. Costa
M. Norman-Safin
Guga-Kafelnikov
Corretja-Ferrero

Compare this with the quarterfinals from this year:

Federer-Gonzalez
Ferrer-Monfils
Djokovic-Gulbis
Nadal-Almagro

There is simply no comparison. No, it is not Nadal's fault but at this point he must be feeling like the last of the Mohicans. :lol: Even worse is that I cannot see anybody coming through from the juniors right now.

scoobs
06-08-2008, 10:02 PM
Borg had Vilas- Nadal has clowns.
Borg won nearly all their matches, and almost without exception more easily than Nadal did against Federer.

GlennMirnyi
06-08-2008, 10:02 PM
What's your point Merton? That in 2000 there were 6 specialist claycourters and 2 good claycourters in the quarters and that now there was one specialist and 3 good cc?

GlennMirnyi
06-08-2008, 10:05 PM
Borg's first competition in RG was Lendl.

ReturnWinner
06-08-2008, 10:06 PM
I posted this elsewhere, but it is relevant here. Just take a look at the RG quarterfinals in 2000:

Squillari-Al. Costa
M. Norman-Safin
Guga-Kafelnikov
Corretja-Ferrero

Compare this with the quarterfinals from this year:

Federer-Gonzalez
Ferrer-Monfils
Djokovic-Gulbis
Nadal-Almagro

There is simply no comparison. No, it is not Nadal's fault but at this point he must be feeling like the last of the Mohicans. :lol: Even worse is that I cannot see anybody coming through from the juniors right now.

that is true, those years like since 1997 were stronger
this year Gulbis in quarters,LLodra in the fourth round, i think last year Bjorkman was in the round too :lol:, now there are a lack of many true good clay courters.

and the youngersts like Del Potro,Korolev,Cilic and Gulbis :help:

zicofirol
06-08-2008, 10:08 PM
when Kuerten and Muster were cruising. They weren't clearly better than Federer or Djokovic. :o:o:o , yes they where...




Weakest era ever .


fixed, i think in a way teh raquet technology surpassed players, in the sense that in todays era we have so many mindless bashers out there that it will take time before we see more intelligent players... for example how can a mug like monflis make it to SF of a GS??? how???

Merton
06-08-2008, 10:08 PM
What's your point Merton? That in 2000 there were 6 specialist claycourters and 2 good claycourters in the quarters and that now there was one specialist and 3 good cc?

Pretty much, if you put it that brutally in numbers. :lol: Or you can look at top clay court players born after 82 where apart from Nadal you have Andreev, Monaco, Almagro, Wawrinka, Verdasco. Those guys are just not that good as claycourters in the 90s.

Merton
06-08-2008, 10:09 PM
Guga was not clearly better than Djokovic on clay :haha: :haha: Yes, it must be that inferior one-handed backhand of his. This is almost on par with saying Sharapova at her best can overpower Nadal and Ferrer on clay for one set.

scoobs
06-08-2008, 10:13 PM
Both Kuerten and Muster would have killed Federer and Djokovic on clay.

Kuerten did kill World #1 Roger Federer on clay in 2004 Roland Garros third round. 6-4 6-4 6-4.

shotgun
06-08-2008, 10:13 PM
It's quite true that claycourt tennis lacks depth at the moment, but I think this year has already been better than the previous two, with Djokovic stepping up.

It's just bad Nalbandian doesn't have the consistency and Davydenko lacks the killer instinct to beat the top guys.

ReturnWinner
06-08-2008, 10:15 PM
1996 was not a strong roland garros,well Muster lost to Stich that is one of the reason, Courier old, and still not guga but most of those years I agree there were plenty of very good clay courters.

marcRD
06-08-2008, 10:29 PM
I cant belive people still think Muster and company could beat Nadal 2008. Kuerten who is one of my favorites would just get a win 1 out of 5 times and I cant see anyone else in the 90s defeating Nadal. His game is in every detail perfect for the clay surface, he is something entirely different from anything we have seen in the history of tennis. Even if I am swedish I can say it right away that Borg with modern raquets would not beat Nadal, I am just trying to be objective. Tennis is more international now than ever before, Borg played in a time when americans where the most dominant country in RG. I wont have to defend Borg because we all know that Rafa will win RG next year and the year thereafter and should win 7-8 RGs if he avoids injuries in the future.

shotgun
06-08-2008, 10:36 PM
Even if I am swedish I can say it right away that Borg with modern raquets would not beat Nadal, I am just trying to be objective.

And I doubt Nadal would beat Borg with a wooden raquet. ;)

Merton
06-08-2008, 10:40 PM
MArc, we have discussed this before so there is no point repeating that. There is no doubt that Nadal would be a clay great but he could not play every match at the level he has shown during this French Open. That would be simply impossible. Yes, there were far more dangerous players on clay before, so something like his 81-win streak or the 41-win best of five streak would be much more unlikely to occur. Ultimately though it is impossible to copare accross eras.

Having said that, still Djokovic better than Guga on clay :haha: :haha:

hra87
06-08-2008, 10:41 PM
Yes.

marcRD
06-08-2008, 11:06 PM
MArc, we have discussed this before so there is no point repeating that. There is no doubt that Nadal would be a clay great but he could not play every match at the level he has shown during this French Open. That would be simply impossible. Yes, there were far more dangerous players on clay before, so something like his 81-win streak or the 41-win best of five streak would be much more unlikely to occur. Ultimately though it is impossible to copare accross eras.

Having said that, still Djokovic better than Guga on clay :haha: :haha:

Well, Djokovic beeing greater than Guga on clay is silly, even Federer beeing anywhere close to Guga would be silly. Yes, we have discussed this before but I dont think we have had evidence of Nadals absolute domination before this tournament. I actually simply cant in anyway see any of those names clay era nostalgics keep repeating taking more than a set from Nadal in this form except maybe (and only a maybe) Guga.

I have watched clay tennis since 94-95 so I know what those guys were like, I mean you need to be blind to think that guys like Costa, Muster, Bruguera or Kafelnikov could defeat Nadal in Roland Garros. I dont care about the technology leap it is just a different game, a perfect game, he is better at every shot than these guys.

Most people seem to only remember their glories, these old legends but never their clownish experience. Maybe this is why Moya is never included on lists which include Corretja...

But I remember Costa losing to Julien Boutter in the 1st round the year before he won Roland Garros. I remember Muster could not win against serve volleyers to save his life. Bruguera may have been before my time, but I remember the final against Guga and I know his game would be ripped apart by Nadal from what I have seen from him.

I know this has been discussed to death, but it is getting quite silly. Everyone knows that they are watching the greatest clay player of all time and that clown era or no clown era Muster, Costa and Bruguera would still struggle to win RG in this era. There must be better players on clay today than Boutter, Rafter, Sampras, Becker, Stich, Woodforde and all other avarage claycourters who defeated these clay legends so many times, right?

luie
06-08-2008, 11:14 PM
Look nadal is that good...BUT its just boring the way he keeps winning on clay....
I would like to see him tested but who is up to the challenge...Only guga comes to mind.....

marcRD
06-08-2008, 11:28 PM
Look nadal is that good...BUT its just boring the way he keeps winning on clay....
I would like to see him tested but who is up to the challenge...Only guga comes to mind.....

Yes, that is the only one from recent time I belive could do some damage. His backhand should not have a problem with Nadals spin, because it was a great backhand and he was a really tall guy. His serve worked great on clay and could give him some easy games against Nadal and his dropshots were really good which is also important against Nadal.

Andi-M
06-09-2008, 01:05 AM
I agree with the OP 100% this is an extremely weak clay court era even the top Spaniards(bar Nadal) and Argies are better on hardcourts.

Okonsky
06-09-2008, 01:12 AM
I don't think so. The difference is - Nadal is billion years ahed on clay at this very moment. The rest is the same as 07, 06, 05...

ys
06-09-2008, 02:38 AM
IMHO, Nadal is just a very bad matchup for Federer, especially on clay. As it is putting Federer's glaring weakness ( backhand ) against the best claycourt weapon ever in Nadal's forehand.

Muster? Had 1.5 glorious clay seasons.. Kuerten? Yeah, great claycourter, but no need to forget that in each of his RGs that he won he was let off the hook by Kafelnikov in the quarterfinals.. Even at his heyday Guga could be very vulnerable on clay against nobodies ( like Michael Russel ). Rafa simply doesn't have this kind of stuff .. and that's the greatest testimony of how good he is.. Even on their best days excellent clay players like Almagro or Verdasco have nothing on Rafa. Nothing. In this Tour everyone knows that you have a chance against Rafa on clay only if he happened to run a marathon the day before .. or something like that..

The type of player who should be able to challenge Nadal at RG is pretty clear - it should be a very fit player with good DH backhand.. Djokovic and Davydenko are not fit enough to match this type. Nalbandyan is not consistent enough. Ferrero should be a good matchup on paper, but there is no Ferrero anymore, so to speak.. And I can't think of any other.

tripb19
06-09-2008, 02:57 AM
Nadal is the greatest clay courter ever and the lack of clay court depth on tour exacerbates the gap, so it's a bit of both.

GlennMirnyi
06-09-2008, 02:58 AM
Guga was never losing to Russell. :bs:

maskedmuffin
06-09-2008, 03:01 AM
Guga was never losing to Russell. :bs:


then what the fuck was he doing in a 5th set with him? having a tea party?

ys
06-09-2008, 03:02 AM
Guga was never losing to Russell. :bs:

He didn't, and I didn't say he did.. But he was losing.. Had matchpoints against him..
Can you think of anyone of nobody caliber having Rafa on the ropes in a claycourt match? Leave alone in RG match..

GlennMirnyi
06-09-2008, 03:20 AM
He didn't, and I didn't say he did.. But he was losing.. Had matchpoints against him..
Can you think of anyone of nobody caliber having Rafa on the ropes in a claycourt match? Leave alone in RG match..

In RG it's very difficult because Philippe Chatrier court is almost a football field. Gives Nadal plenty of space to retreat 10 meters behind the baseline to make almost every kind of shot.

The only chance for someone to beat Nadal in RG would be a Frenchie in a great day with an agressive baseline game in a small packed court with DC atmosphere.

Forehander
06-09-2008, 03:41 AM
Domination is about making it look easy. Gustavo Kuerton, one handed backhand skinny twig defeating lefty clay king? Yep go to sleep and dream about it.

GlennMirnyi
06-09-2008, 03:53 AM
It's Kuerten and he'd beat Nadal eyes-closed. :)

BigJohn
06-09-2008, 04:02 AM
It's Kuerten and he'd beat Nadal eyes-closed. :)

No he would not. You cannot be serious.

CyBorg
06-09-2008, 04:06 AM
It's a matchup thing. Kuerten would have been tough for Rafa, and vise-versa as well. Yes, Kuerten did have a poor match against Russel, but that doesn't mean he played that way the rest of the tournament.

Guga was a true fighter. Another poster on a tennis board compared him to Korda. Similar set of skills but one major difference - Guga was a fighter, while Korda tended to give up when he wasn't having a good day. Guga fought through it. The Russell match was one of those instances.

When on his game Guga could beat Nadal. He could beat anyone.

GlennMirnyi
06-09-2008, 04:07 AM
No he would not. You cannot be serious.

Injury-ridden Kuerten defeated 04 Federer in straights. Nadal only managed to beat Federer in straights in RG this year. Do you think a healthy Guga would have any problem? :rolleyes:

ys
06-09-2008, 04:14 AM
It's a matchup thing. Kuerten would have been tough for Rafa, and vise-versa as well. Yes, Kuerten did have a poor match against Russel, but that doesn't mean he played that way the rest of the tournament.

That's not the point. Rafa had played 4 RG and won all of them EASILY, has never been anywhere close to losing position. Guga played 11, won 3, and was in losing position in every single one of those. Lets face it.. Rafa is untouchable on this court. Guga has never been in that quality or anywhere close. Guga has been winning his RGs on his heart and mental toughness just as much as on his game, Rafa is winning on pure, unparalleled supremacy.

BigJohn
06-09-2008, 04:16 AM
If healthy Guga would play healthy Rafa, I'd be putting a lot of cash on Rafa.

maskedmuffin
06-09-2008, 04:22 AM
even a 6'3" guga wouldn't have the strength to consistently climb the ladder to hit shot upon shot of rising curveballs on the backhand side. He would look like he would though, well cause guga is always smiling, even when he is pissed off :P

GlennMirnyi
06-09-2008, 04:22 AM
That's not the point. Rafa had played 4 RG and won all of them EASILY, has never been anywhere close to losing position. Guga played 11, won 3, and was in losing position in every single one of those. Lets face it.. Rafa is untouchable on this court. Guga has never been in that quality or anywhere close. Guga has been winning his RGs on his heart and mental toughness just as much as on his game, Rafa is winning on pure, unparalleled supremacy.

Guga's era >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal's era.

maskedmuffin
06-09-2008, 04:24 AM
Guga's era >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal's era.

of course you konw, cause michael russel is soo much better than jarko niemenin:rolleyes:

GlennMirnyi
06-09-2008, 04:26 AM
of course you konw, cause michael russel is soo much better than jarko niemenin:rolleyes:

Kafelnikov is as good as any player Nadal has ever beaten on clay.

maskedmuffin
06-09-2008, 04:40 AM
Kafelnikov is as good as any player Nadal has ever beaten on clay.

kafelnikov was a great talent; a complete unmotivated headcase. rafa would **** him until the dude started to think about poker halfway through the match.

GlennMirnyi
06-09-2008, 04:42 AM
kafelnikov was a great talent; a complete unmotivated headcase. rafa would **** him until the dude started to think about poker halfway through the match.

Is that supposed to have anything to do with my post, mate?

maskedmuffin
06-09-2008, 04:44 AM
Is that supposed to have anything to do with my post, mate?

yes; it has to do with the fact that its not just physical talent that makes rafa the greatest claycourter of the game; its the mental aespect and intensity. kafelnikov didnt have that type of sustained intensity; only guy i can think of is either courier/brugera and muster.

GlennMirnyi
06-09-2008, 04:47 AM
Kafelnikov had game.

At the end of the day it's all that counts. Nadal wins because there are no good claycourters nowadays.

Stgobaiano
06-09-2008, 04:49 AM
Glenn Mirnyi:worship: ''The King of the Falacias''

I have never seen a guarantee argument from him

GlennMirnyi
06-09-2008, 04:51 AM
Where's Nalbandian? Losing to Chardy? :haha:

maskedmuffin
06-09-2008, 04:57 AM
nalbandian thought chardy was a dish, and so was looking forward to a yummy meal
sadly, he became the meal :(

Stgobaiano
06-09-2008, 05:00 AM
Where's Nalbandian? Losing to Chardy? :haha:

Where is Mirnyi;)? and the great gruop of elite players that you support:worship:

You always change the topic eh?xD

GlennMirnyi
06-09-2008, 05:02 AM
Nalbandian was distracted by this:

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/1411/11292593.JPG

GlennMirnyi
06-09-2008, 05:03 AM
Your posts in MTF are resumed by:

Nalbandian is the best player in the universe.

And you call me "falacia". :haha:

maskedmuffin
06-09-2008, 05:03 AM
Nalbandian was distracted by this:

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/1411/11292593.JPG


is that tony roach manning the chair?:confused: i see he's still sleeping the job

ys
06-09-2008, 05:03 AM
In a way it is true, this is a weak Era, regardless of the surfaces.. Otherwise, how would a super-talented yet gutless girl like Federer win 12 Slams..

Against stellar opponents like .. Flipper, Roddick , Safin, Hewitt, Agassi, Baghdatis, Gonzales in his 30s.. That's Fed's opposition on surfaces other than clay.. That's laughable.. Rafa and Djoker of late is the only quality opposition Fed had to face.. And now, as there is someone to challenge him on every surface, Fed suddenly can't win anything better than Estoril..

fast_clay
06-09-2008, 05:03 AM
one of these days rafa will get caught in an intense battle, he will suffer a brain haemorrage and blood will piss out his ear... this will level out the field on clay for about a year or so...

Bobby
06-09-2008, 05:04 AM
of course you konw, cause michael russel is soo much better than jarko niemenin:rolleyes:

Who the hell is jarko niemenin? Never heard of a player named jarko niemenin.

fast_clay
06-09-2008, 05:04 AM
Nalbandian was distracted by this:

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/1411/11292593.JPG

heh heh ... he has shares in that company

Stgobaiano
06-09-2008, 05:05 AM
Your posts in MTF are resumed by:

Nalbandian is the best player in the universe.

And you call me "falacia". :haha:

I am not talking about Nalbi;) look who is talking about him xD

Falacia

GlennMirnyi
06-09-2008, 05:05 AM
is that tony roach manning the chair?:confused: i see he's still sleeping the job

It's Higueras thinking about Federer's final tactics. :lol:

Johnny Groove
06-09-2008, 05:09 AM
Kafelnikov had game.

At the end of the day it's all that counts. Nadal wins because there are no good claycourters nowadays.

Do you think that Kafelnikov would have any shot against Nadal? :lol:

GlennMirnyi
06-09-2008, 05:09 AM
Of course. Don't you?

ys
06-09-2008, 05:12 AM
Do you think that Kafelnikov would have any shot against Nadal? :lol:

Kafelnikov at his prime, as well as Agassi, Moya or even Medvedev at their prime would have had a decent shot, a better shot against Rafa than Federer. As their backhand was not a liability, but a weapon.
It's a pity that Coria didn't survive as an elite player till rise of Rafa, that would have been a fun matchup..

fast_clay
06-09-2008, 05:16 AM
Kafelnikov at his prime, as well as Agassi, Moya or even Medvedev at their prime would have had a decent shot, a better shot against Rafa than Federer. As their backhand was not a liability, but a weapon.
It's a pity that Coria didn't survive as an elite player till rise of Rafa, that would have been a fun matchup..

yeah coria had the mad skills to carve out a couple of sets... but, maybe yesterday... no

Action Jackson
06-09-2008, 05:17 AM
Thank fuck for Nadal, as for the rest of them, well no comment is probably the best response to offer.

fast_clay
06-09-2008, 05:19 AM
makes you wonder what MTF woulda looked like when borg took the piss by dropping 28 games or some shit one FO...

ys
06-09-2008, 05:23 AM
makes you wonder what MTF woulda looked like when borg took the piss by dropping 28 games or some shit one FO...

41 games dropped by Rafa is not bad at all, given that he had to defeat someone who - they say - will be #1 before the end of the year and someone who - they say - is a GOAT..

fast_clay
06-09-2008, 05:24 AM
yeah the final really missed a boratsetagui or korda... someone to freak out at while they got rolled... like, 'how the f*ck is he doing that...?' or ' whats wrong with that dudes face...?' ...the final lacked anything...

fast_clay
06-09-2008, 05:28 AM
41 games dropped by Rafa is not bad at all, given that he had to defeat someone who - they say - will be #1 before the end of the year and someone who - they say - is a GOAT..


laver is GOAT... to suggest otherwise is silly...

he won on clay...

Scotso
06-09-2008, 05:29 AM
I disagree. I just think Nadal is truly that good. His consistency, topspin, and angles are the best I've ever seen on clay (and I'm always the first to refer to the "Borg era"). On top of that, his serve has become a force now as well. The way he just thrashes his opponents is really something, and he hardly gives a single point away. The sickest part is that I still get the feeling he hasn't reached his full potential yet.

We're watching the best clay court player of all time folks, plain and simple...

Agreed.

Rafa = Fed Killa
06-09-2008, 05:29 AM
In a way it is true, this is a weak Era, regardless of the surfaces.. Otherwise, how would a super-talented yet gutless girl like Federer win 12 Slams..

Against stellar opponents like .. Flipper, Roddick , Safin, Hewitt, Agassi, Baghdatis, Gonzales in his 30s.. That's Fed's opposition on surfaces other than clay.. That's laughable.. Rafa and Djoker of late is the only quality opposition Fed had to face.. And now, as there is someone to challenge him on every surface, Fed suddenly can't win anything better than Estoril..

Great statement. The girly man Federer got his 12 lucky slams but cant win anything against real competition.

Keep in mind Agassi was over 30. Prime Agassi would have destroyed the girly man Federer.

General Suburbia
06-09-2008, 05:44 AM
Prime Agassi WAS in his 30s.

MrChopin
06-09-2008, 05:52 AM
Maybe someone could explain how era comparison works, because I fail to see any standard by which we can judge the quality of the entire field. Rankings for each player are relative: #1 has more points than number #2... yet how does one rank an entire field against another entire field?

After Fed wins his sixth Wimbledon, I guess you'll say that Fed's domination (including RG '08-esque '06 Wimbledon and '07 AO) was, despite surface uniformity and general preference for slow hardcourts, because of a weak hardcourt era... oh wait a minute.

Bottom line is that Fed and Nadal are closing in on Borg's records, but nobody will admit that Borg (who dominated grass and clay) had a weak era. Rather, Borg was just supremely talented in an era among giants; Fed and Rafa have it easy (neither able to do what Borg did because the other is keeping them from it). They play in a time when tennis is more global than before, technology more developed than previously, and the game more physical than ever. But no, weak era!

fast_clay
06-09-2008, 06:02 AM
Maybe someone could explain how era comparison works, because I fail to see any standard by which we can judge the quality of the entire field. Rankings for each player are relative: #1 has more points than number #2... yet how does one rank an entire field against another entire field?

After Fed wins his sixth Wimbledon, I guess you'll say that Fed's domination (including RG '08-esque '06 Wimbledon and '07 AO) was, despite surface uniformity and general preference for slow hardcourts, because of a weak hardcourt era... oh wait a minute.

Bottom line is that Fed and Nadal are closing in on Borg's records, but nobody will admit that Borg (who dominated grass and clay) had a weak era. Rather, Borg was just supremely talented in an era among giants; Fed and Rafa have it easy (neither able to do what Borg did because the other is keeping them from it). They play in a time when tennis is more global than before, technology more developed than previously, and the game more physical than ever. But no, weak era!

i hear you... all round, the pressure applied to great moments is the only measurement we can really know...

the truth is, its only borg retirement that would allow these comparisons of greatness...

2 men breaking 2 records that 1 man held with an evolutionary style...?

c'mon... open your eyes people...

Nadal_Fanatic
06-09-2008, 09:01 AM
What does it take for Nadal to get some respect around here? He destroyed everyone. I think Nadal could beat anyone from any era on clay.

All_Slam_Andre
06-09-2008, 09:09 AM
Nadal is a genius and is the second best player on clay that I've ever seen (I still think that Borg was better and he was even fitter in his prime than Rafa is at the moment). However I agree that this is a very weak clay court era. Federer is the second best player in the world on clay at the moment who has put together some very impressive results on it, yet I certainly don't think that he is brilliant or overly special on the surface. Djokovic plays hardcourt tennis on clay yet can routinely beat everyone on the surface apart from Nadal and Federer.

oz_boz
06-09-2008, 11:57 AM
Nadal's competition is comparable to Borg's, Federer could have had a Vilas run on clay and obviously win RG sometime between 2005-8 if Nadal had any injury timeout those years.

IMO: recent times, same goes for clay as for tennis as a whole - better depth of top 100 (and for clay even that is questionable), worse of top 10. Most of the two decades 1983-2003 the clay top 10 was a lot better than now. Just as Fed's domination would have been lessened somewhat with Becker and Agassi around, Nadal would have lost a few against Guga and Muster.

BigJohn
06-09-2008, 11:59 AM
Great statement. The girly man Federer got his 12 lucky slams but cant win anything against real competition.

Keep in mind Agassi was over 30. Prime Agassi would have destroyed the girly man Federer.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. 12 lucky slams... Like the saying: lightning strikes 12 times... Wasn't that a song by Iron Maiden?

Federer has not faced real competition in the 12 majors he won? Oh well...

leng jai
06-09-2008, 12:16 PM
Nadal is a genius and is the second best player on clay that I've ever seen (I still think that Borg was better and he was even fitter in his prime than Rafa is at the moment). However I agree that this is a very weak clay court era. Federer is the second best player in the world on clay at the moment who has put together some very impressive results on it, yet I certainly don't think that he is brilliant or overly special on the surface. Djokovic plays hardcourt tennis on clay yet can routinely beat everyone on the surface apart from Nadal and Federer.

In what way is Nadal a genius? It must take a brain surgeon to devise the same gameplan he employs for every single match on clay.

Bernard Black
06-09-2008, 12:24 PM
In what way is Nadal a genius? It must take a brain surgeon to devise the same gameplan he employs for every single match on clay.

It will be intriguing to see how Nadal alters his strategy when he comes up against a player with a big backhand or a Muster-esque lefty who can cope with the high balls out to his forehand. Sadly, it hasn't happened yet, but surely it is just a matter of time.

alfonsojose
06-09-2008, 02:00 PM
Kolya was the last one to give the doping bull a real fight in Rome :eek: :shrug:

A_Skywalker
06-09-2008, 02:07 PM
I dont think its a weak era of clay. You can say the same for grass for example with the same arguments. There are 2 people that dominated this surfaces and are a lot more better than the rest of the field on those surfaces.

Jogy
06-09-2008, 03:59 PM
I tryed to say that Federer is playing in a weak time often and people always telled me that Federer only dominate because he is so good and that it is Federer who is so good that nobody else wins. So with Nadal case it should be the same, it is not weak era, but because Nadal is so good and dominating.

fast_clay
06-09-2008, 04:59 PM
this thread is fukt... i regret posting in it now...

Sunset of Age
06-09-2008, 05:22 PM
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. 12 lucky slams... Like the saying: lightning strikes 12 times... Wasn't that a song by Iron Maiden?

Federer has not faced real competition in the 12 majors he won? Oh well...

:haha: :rocker2: :music: :rocker2:

luie
06-10-2008, 03:07 AM
41 games dropped by Rafa is not bad at all, given that he had to defeat someone who - they say - will be #1 before the end of the year and someone who - they say - is a GOAT..
True but federer is good on clay, not great ,,he only wants RG b/c its missing... NOT b/c he wants to achieve clay supremecy,,etc Novak lacks stamina & a good clay game....In short federer is a great allcourter BUT not a great clay courter.... novak is good with HARDS his prefered surface...
LONG ago they had GUGA,ferrero,burgera,muster, costa etc clay was their bread & butter,,if they failed,"they starve" so to speak..they have the mentality right, DO or DIE...so yes they would challegene rafa toe to toe....they might not win BUT they will fight with everything they got..
Look even the spanish #2 has posted better results on hards than on clay... This era lacks Quality clay court specialist.

Clay Death
06-10-2008, 04:13 AM
True but federer is good on clay, not great ,,he only wants RG b/c its missing... NOT b/c he wants to achieve clay supremecy,,etc Novak lacks stamina & a good clay game....In short federer is a great allcourter BUT not a great clay courter.... novak is good with HARDS his prefered surface...
LONG ago they had GUGA,ferrero,burgera,muster, costa etc clay was their bread & butter,,if they failed,"they starve" so to speak..they have the mentality right, DO or DIE...so yes they would challegene rafa toe to toe....they might not win BUT they will fight with everything they got..
Look even the spanish #2 has posted better results on hards than on clay... This era lacks Quality clay court specialist.


Fed does have one hell of a resume on clay. 3 straight finals of the Frens Opens will sound pretty good in the history books.

that said, his "window" is gone. Nadal is only going to get better on clay than he already is. his slice and his net game could improve. his serve is finally showing some signs of life. he still needs to learn to move it around the box but at least he did a great job of taking care of his serve at Roland Garros.

if i am a pro out there competing, the guy that i would fear is Djokovic. i hear he has become a tremendous worker. he is paying his dues by putting in the work. at barely 21, he has massive upsideat the current rate.

i also like Gulbis. he seems to have the goods.

sheeter
06-10-2008, 05:36 AM
Nadal is only going to get better on clay than he already is. his slice and his net game could improve.

True, but I think his slice has improved a LOT this year, and i noticed him using a heavily side spun slice down the line to set up forehands. Its becoming more and more hard to attack, is heavier, and he's starting to use it aggressively. His slice also improved defensively. It should held his grass court game a lot. It won't ever be as good as Federer's, but think we should give him so credit.

crude oil
06-10-2008, 06:46 AM
In what way is Nadal a genius? It must take a brain surgeon to devise the same gameplan he employs for every single match on clay.

actually if you think about it. there are more brainsurgeons in the world than there are NADAL's. so the level of difficulty in doing what rafa does is not comparable. whether or not the difficulty is in the strategy is irrelevant. so nadal is more of a genius than your standard brainsurgeon.

brain surgery btw isnt as complicated as some make it out to be. it requires exceptional training and dedication but the procedures are actually routine and standard for most non-academic brainsurgeons.

Action Jackson
04-04-2009, 10:13 AM
Kolya was the last one to give the doping bull a real fight in Rome :eek: :shrug:

You just love Nadal, don't you?

LinkMage
05-03-2009, 08:27 PM
This thread needs a quality bump.

Now the UE machine Fedmug is the 3rd best on the surface it seems. And hardcourt specialist Djokovic is the #2.

What a great competition! :bigclap:

Albop
05-03-2009, 08:29 PM
This thread needs a quality bump.

Now the UE machine Fedmug is the 3rd best on the surface it seems. And hardcourt specialist Djokovic is the #2.

What a great competition! :bigclap:

Don't forget Andy "Clay GOAT" murray please.

scarecrows
05-03-2009, 08:33 PM
this era is full of great claycourters

LinkMage
05-03-2009, 08:34 PM
Don't forget Andy "Clay GOAT" murray please.

Oh, how could I forget the Clay God? How stupid of me. :smash:

brunocitron
05-03-2009, 08:53 PM
The Top4 is the best Top4 in the history, so I think is normal the clay courts specialists seem to be weak.

Action Jackson
05-03-2009, 08:57 PM
Yes, I kept getting told that Federer was better than Vilas on clay, yes this has to be true, doesn't it?

Albop
05-03-2009, 08:57 PM
The Top4 is the best Top4 in the history, so I think is normal the clay courts specialists seem to be weak.

Oh dear.................

Ilovetheblues_86
05-03-2009, 08:58 PM
The Top4 is the best Top4 in the history, so I think is normal the clay courts specialists seem to be weak.

:crazy: Another one that must be joking.

brunocitron
05-03-2009, 08:59 PM
Yes, I kept getting told that Federer was better than Vilas on clay, yes this has to be true, doesn't it?


No doubt about that :cool:

Action Jackson
05-03-2009, 09:00 PM
Comedy gold in here.

luie
05-03-2009, 09:16 PM
The Top4 is the best Top4 in the history, so I think is normal the clay courts specialists seem to be weak.
The media got another one.:haha::haha:

brunocitron
05-03-2009, 09:19 PM
Can you find another top4 better than this one ? :nerner:

Action Jackson
05-03-2009, 09:22 PM
Can you find another top4 better than this one ? :nerner:

You started following tennis in 2005, didn't you?

Action Jackson
05-03-2009, 09:23 PM
I forgot any combo of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Vilas, Wilander, Becker and Edberg is worse than what is going on now.

brunocitron
05-03-2009, 09:24 PM
Aswer the question instead of invent my life lol

scarecrows
05-03-2009, 09:24 PM
Can you find another top4 better than this one ? :nerner:
I cant :sad:

Action Jackson
05-03-2009, 09:25 PM
In other words I was right and question has been answered.

Ilovetheblues_86
05-03-2009, 09:28 PM
Can you find another top4 better than this one ? :nerner:

Sampras-Courier-Edberg-Becker (93)
Edberg-Becker-Lendl-Agassi (91)
Lendl-mcenroe-wilander-connors (85)
Connors-Borg-Villas-Mcenroe (79)
Nastase-Newcombe-Connors-Rosewall (73)

I failed. :sad:

brunocitron
05-03-2009, 09:38 PM
In other words I was right and question has been answered.

:confused: :D

Sorry I didn't see your answer, but you give a list of random players just like that

I see a enormous domination of the top4 (4 very talented players) over the rest, you didn't see that before and I guess you are are following tennis since Laver era :D

And you if take the players who are on the 50th or 45th position now, you can see they are much better than your lovely players of the eighties in the same position :eek: :D

scarecrows
05-03-2009, 09:39 PM
:confused: :D

Sorry I didn't see your answer, but you give a list of random players just like that

I see a enormous domination of the top4 (4 very talented players) over the rest, you didn't see that before and I guess you are are following tennis since Laver era :D

And you if take the players who are on the 50th or 45th position now, you can see they are much better than your lovely players of the eighties in the same position :eek: :D

http://www.ateaseweb.com/mb/style_emoticons/default/doh.gif

brunocitron
05-03-2009, 09:44 PM
:cool:

GlennMirnyi
05-03-2009, 10:16 PM
The Top4 is the best Top4 in the history, so I think is normal the clay courts specialists seem to be weak.

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

Can you find another top4 better than this one ? :nerner:

The question should be:

Can you find a worse top 4 than this one?

thrust
05-03-2009, 10:22 PM
:crazy: Another one that must be joking.

LOL!! Great clay court players this Era? Rafa with Federer a distant second. Thats all there is folks! All-time: Rafa, Rosewall, Laver, Kuerten, Lendl, Muster, Federer. Roger is unlucky in that Rafa was so good at a very young age, otherwise, he would have a better record on clay than he does.

MacTheKnife
05-03-2009, 10:30 PM
This is the weakest clay court era in history right now. There are just no clay court specialists anymore. It doesn't matter the surface in this era, it's the usual suspects favored at every event.

Bazooka
05-04-2009, 12:32 AM
This is the weakest clay court era in history right now. There are just no clay court specialists anymore. It doesn't matter the surface in this era, it's the usual suspects favored at every event.

Well, let's be totally honest here, we have had had some specialists on clay in the last years... but they failed utterly against Federer. Those surviving Fed's best years are now spanked in clay by Nadal.

This is how Federer handled the claycourters of the last five years:

Name (clay titles) clay w/l with Roger.

Coria(8) 0-2
Gaudio(8) 0-2
Robredo(8) 0-3
Almagro(5) 0-3
Ferrer(4) 0-3

So Federer *maybe* is not so bad in clay at all, is he? No matter how you rate these five guys, they combined have won 33 clay titles and should have grabbed at least some wins from Roger. Well, they didn't. Since 2005, same against Nadal. Maybe if Roger and Rafa had been not so consistent all year in every tournament, these guys would have more important clay wins and this could be regarded as a strong clay era. Ferrer could have 2 AMS and 2 Barcelona titles, and be regarded as a good claycourter, for example.

So my conclusion is, clay is not different from other surfaces in this regard, it has not escaped the bi-domination and likely it won't escape the tri-domination of the future. I agree that right now we don't have exceptional clay courters, I am not blind ad I can see that Robredo and Ferrer are no Kuerten or Courier. Yet we should not exagerate, Novak, Federer and Nadal are still very consistent on clay against the rest, plus we have on a lower scale of tournaments some guys that know how to play on clay.

prima donna
05-04-2009, 12:56 AM
In other words I was right and question has been answered.
:lol:

Essentially so.

Albop
05-04-2009, 12:59 AM
Well, let's be totally honest here, we have had had some specialists on clay in the last years... but they failed utterly against Federer. Those surviving Fed's best years are now spanked in clay by Nadal.

This is how Federer handled the claycourters of the last five years:

Name (clay titles) clay w/l with Roger.

Coria(8) 0-2
Gaudio(8) 0-2
Robredo(8) 0-3
Almagro(5) 0-3
Ferrer(4) 0-3

So Federer *maybe* is not so bad in clay at all, is he? No matter how you rate these five guys, they combined have won 33 clay titles and should have grabbed at least some wins from Roger. Well, they didn't. Since 2005, same against Nadal. Maybe if Roger and Rafa had been not so consistent all year in every tournament, these guys would have more important clay wins and this could be regarded as a strong clay era. Ferrer could have 2 AMS and 2 Barcelona titles, and be regarded as a good claycourter, for example.

So my conclusion is, clay is not different from other surfaces in this regard, it has not escaped the bi-domination and likely it won't escape the tri-domination of the future. I agree that right now we don't have exceptional clay courters, I am not blind ad I can see that Robredo and Ferrer are no Kuerten or Courier. Yet we should not exagerate, Novak, Federer and Nadal are still very consistent on clay against the rest, plus we have on a lower scale of tournaments some guys that know how to play on clay.

Jut saw those names and stopped reading your stuff.

Pfloyd
05-04-2009, 01:04 AM
Yes, well Federer is getting rather old and his forehand is spraying, so he is rather weak.

Djokovic retires from a sore throat, not exactly a Mike Tyson.

Murray until yesterday would faint after a few games.

Not to mention Roddick and Nalbandian, who rather eat donuts than roll around in dirt. It's hard work, and they do not want to work out, can't be strong if you can't life weights.....

;)

marcRD
05-04-2009, 01:17 AM
How can any era having Nadal be the weakest clay court era in history? Nadal would beat any player who has ever lived in 4 sets in Roland Garros.

All in the top 3 have also grown on clay, I cant remember the last time you have 3 great players who all have grown up playing on clay.

Clay specialists never was and never will be the greatest players on clay. Borg and Nadal clearly are no clay specialists and neither is Lendl and Wilander, Kuerten is barely a clay specialist. Who is the greatest clay specialist of all time? Muster...

He is not even in my top list of alltime clay greats.

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 01:22 AM
How can any era having Nadal be the weakest clay court era in history? Nadal would beat any player who has ever lived in 4 sets in Roland Garros.

All in the top 3 have also grown on clay, I cant remember the last time you have 3 great players who all have grown up playing on clay.

Clay specialists never was and never will be the greatest players on clay. Borg and Nadal clearly are no clay specialists and neither is Lendl and Wilander, Kuerten is barely a clay specialist. Who is the greatest clay specialist of all time? Muster...

He is not even in my top list of alltime clay greats.

Thank you for saving me typing time.

Although I do rank Kuerten as a clay specialist and Muster as one of my all-time clay greats.

rocketassist
05-04-2009, 01:24 AM
Thank you for saving me typing time.

Although I do rank Kuerten as a clay specialist and Muster as one of my all-time clay greats.

The amazing thing is current eratards proclaiming Fakervic and Fedclown as being greater clay court players than those two you mention there.

moon language
05-04-2009, 01:24 AM
Since all courts are clay now (green clay, blue clay, etc) doesn't that mean that all players are clay court specialists?

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 01:30 AM
The amazing thing is current eratards proclaiming Fakervic and Fedclown as being greater clay court players than those two you mention there.

On clay, in their prime, Kuerten and Muster are above Djokovic and Federer, which doesn't mean these two aren't great clay court players.

marcRD
05-04-2009, 01:39 AM
Jut saw those names and stopped reading your stuff.

Add some more competent, or even excellent clay players:

Ferrero-Federer 0-3
Davydenko-Federer 0-3
Moya-Federer 0-3
Nalbandian-Federer 1-3
Verdasco-Federer 0-2
Andreev-Federer 0-1
Monaco-Federer 0-1

The myth about the clay specialists of the old days is really annoying, I remember still today Muster and the spaniards, it was not that special as some will want to make you belive. The great clay players were no specialists, the specialists just won alot of small clay tournaments while RG was dominated by great players like Lendl, Borg and Nadal who can play on all surfaces. A player like Agassi had more success in RG than any clay specialist of the last 30 years (except Bruguera)!

Becker, Rafter, Edberg and Sampras all got to semifinal in RG in the so called golden era of clay specialists!

Just some years ago Verkerk got to the final in RG, would this be possible today?

I have my doubts if any clay specialist of the 90s would beat Federer 2006-2007 on clay, Guga would do it 2 out of 3 matches but I doubt any other would have the weapons to beat Federer.

marcRD
05-04-2009, 01:44 AM
The amazing thing is current eratards proclaiming Fakervic and Fedclown as being greater clay court players than those two you mention there.

Kuerten, absolutely not. But Muster I would say maybe, Federer has probably proven more in RG than Muster ever did. 10 clay MS finals, 3 RG finals and 4 clay master series titles should be ranked above what Muster did in the big clay tournaments when you count in that Nadal has been in every final Federer has ever lost on clay except one (which was in his younger days).

marcRD
05-04-2009, 01:50 AM
On clay, in their prime, Kuerten and Muster are above Djokovic and Federer, which doesn't mean these two aren't great clay court players.

I personaly doubt Muster would beat Federer or Djokovic on clay in his prime. Muster just was the king of clay specialists, he could beat those spaniards week in and week out in small tournaments where no one else cared too much. In RG Courier owned him, so did attacking players like Sampras, Stich, Becker and Rafter. I cant see Federer not finding a way to beat Muster in RG, neither should Djokovic be underdog against Muster on clay.

What people doesnt understand is that Federer and Djokovic are just better players than Muster, in fact they are much better tennis players. Most players who were great everywhere except clay, had a tennis style not suited for clay (Edberg, Becker) or just didnt grow up on clay (almost all american and australian players). Federer and Djokovic have no problems with clay and feel at home on clay courts, afterall they grew up on clay. I have no doubt that both of them would win RG atleast once if they had played in another era.

The 90s were dominated by american players and serve and volley players (Edberg, Becker, Ivanicevic, Stich) creating a vacuum on clay, were after all none of the top players had games suited to play on clay (except Courier and Agassi). Thereby creating the era of clay specialists. In the 80s and 70s on the other hand we had Borg, Lendl, Wilander dominating clay and other surfaces aswell, european top players with games suited to play great tennis on clay and other surfaces aswell.

We can even go back to the 60s were the great australians were still capable of dominating clay and RG. I see the 90s as an exception, clay specialists taking advantage of how bad the greatest players in the world could adjust to clay. So, it was the most diversed and entertaining era of clay tennis but not the one with greatest quality of tennis.

Clay specialists didnt magicaly disappear because of some change in surfaces, they lost their purpose when european allround players started dominating the game and not serve and volleying americans.

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 02:08 AM
I personaly doubt Muster would beat Federer or Djokovic on clay in his prime. Muster just was the king of clay specialists, he could beat those spaniards week in and week out in small tournaments where no one else cared too much. In RG Courier owned him, so did attacking players like Sampras, Stich, Becker and Rafter. I cant see Federer not finding a way to beat Muster in RG, neither should Djokovic be underdog against Muster on clay.

What people doesnt understand is that Federer and Djokovic are just better players than Muster, in fact they are much better tennis players. Most players who were great everywhere except clay, had a tennis style not suited for clay (Edberg, Becker) or just didnt grow up on clay (almost all american and australian players). Federer and Djokovic have no problems with clay and feel at home on clay courts, afterall they grew up on clay. I have no doubt that both of them would win RG atleast once if they had played in another era.

I thought a lot about the Muster thing. I think 1995 Muster would beat Djokovic and Federer on a best-of-five match most of the times, but it would be close, especially with Federer. Let it be said that I wholeheartedly agree with you on the fact that the myth of clay court specialists is growing too big, and that today's top three on clay would beat most of them most of the times. Thing is, many people (including me) are nostalgic of those dirt warriors that compensated their lack of physical atributes or overall talent with a specialisation on one particular surface that was most natural to them.

marcRD
05-04-2009, 02:20 AM
I thought a lot about the Muster thing. I think 1995 Muster would beat Djokovic and Federer on a best-of-five match most of the times, but it would be close, especially with Federer. Let it be said that I wholeheartedly agree with you on the fact that the myth of clay court specialists is growing too big, and that today's top three on clay would beat most of them most of the times. Thing is, many people (including me) are nostalgic of those dirt warriors that compensated their lack of physical atributes or overall talent with a specialisation on one particular surface that was most natural to them.

Let me just show you Muster against some attacking players of his generation in the grand stand of clay tennis (RG):

Roland Garros 96
Stich defeats Muster 6-4 4-6 1-6 6-7(1)

Roland Garros 94:
Rafter defeats Muster 4-6 7-5 3-6 3-6

Roland garros 91:
Sampras defeats Muster 6-4 6-4 4-6 1-6 4-6

Roland Garros 88:
Boris Becker defeats Muster 1-6 6-4 5-7 3-6

If these clay greats could defeat Muster by just playing attacking tennis, I have little doubt Federer would figure out how to defeat Muster.


95 Muster had the great fortune to avoid these attacking players in RG, but he did face an old Becker in the Monte Carlo final and here is the result:

Monte Carlo 95 final:
Muster defeats Becker 4-6 5-7 6-1 7-6(6) 6-0

Seriously, Federer would just attack the net and that would be the end of Muster even in his prime.

SaFed2005
05-04-2009, 02:24 AM
Just because Nadal is ****** everyone that stands across the net from him on clay does not mena that this is a weak clay era. There are two ways to look at it. Nadal has not faced anyone great on clay or he is just that damn good on the surface. I don't even like Nadal but I have to admit that he is just THAT DAMN GOOD. Honestly Nadal would beat up on most of these great clay courters people speak of. He is mentally and physically so strong. Physical anomaly really. He is also one of the most patient players in the history of tennis and a dam good tactician. Even Federer is underestimated on clay. If it wasn't for Nadal who was going to stop him from getting at least 3 Rolland Garros titles? Coria, Gaudio, Puerta? Hell no. I can see Federer beat most of these great clay specialists from the past. Sure it may be his worst surface but the guy is no joke on clay.

Also surface specialists DO NOT really exist anymore. Every court is playing very similar these days. Clay and grass just aren't so far apart anymore. Clay looks a little bit faster, hard courts are definitely slower and bouncier and grass is definitely slower but still has lower bounces compared to other surfaces. The fluffier balls they use now also makes tennis seem a bit slower. I was hitting at the USTA last week and I swear those courts seem bouncier and bouncier every year or maybe I keep getting shorter. I don't know anymore. They felt bouncier to me than clay courts. Felt like I was playing on a rubber surface. Then again I don't know how REAL clay is coz clay courts in the US are... lol.

GlennMirnyi
05-04-2009, 02:27 AM
How can any era having Nadal be the weakest clay court era in history? Nadal would beat any player who has ever lived in 4 sets in Roland Garros.

All in the top 3 have also grown on clay, I cant remember the last time you have 3 great players who all have grown up playing on clay.

Clay specialists never was and never will be the greatest players on clay. Borg and Nadal clearly are no clay specialists and neither is Lendl and Wilander, Kuerten is barely a clay specialist. Who is the greatest clay specialist of all time? Muster...

He is not even in my top list of alltime clay greats.

Are you on crack?

Nadull would beat any player in 4 sets at RG?

:rolleyes:

marcRD
05-04-2009, 02:31 AM
Are you on crack?

Nadull would beat any player in 4 sets at RG?

:rolleyes:

You are as predictable as spam in my mail.

GlennMirnyi
05-04-2009, 02:38 AM
Muster wouldn't beat Federer pre-2008.

GlennMirnyi
05-04-2009, 02:40 AM
You are as predictable as spam in my mail.

That post makes you as trustable as George W. Bush.

:shrug:

thrust
05-04-2009, 03:10 AM
On clay, in their prime, Kuerten and Muster are above Djokovic and Federer, which doesn't mean these two aren't great clay court players.

Not so sure about Roger. Without a Nadal, he would have won a few FO titles, an Italian and Monte Carlo too.

Action Jackson
05-04-2009, 06:30 AM
Do you judge an era on 1 guy? Got to love people with no clue.

The original comment refers to the overall standard, when there is a guy that is galaxies in front of the next best on the surface and the changes in tennis surfaces, which of course always tend to be looked over, as it doesn't suit certain agenda.

For those simpletons, that don't get it. Nadal would do well in any era on clay, yes that means any era, but he has no consistent challengers and hasn't for ages and wins without getting out neutral.

A_Skywalker
05-04-2009, 06:39 AM
You are as predictable as spam in my mail.

He's a spammer actually, works daily that job. Look at his post count.

Mimi
05-04-2009, 06:43 AM
hello A_Skywalker :D:wavey:
He's a spammer actually, works daily that job. Look at his post count.

madlove
05-04-2009, 09:46 AM
nadal is just genius on this surface

cocrcici
05-16-2009, 10:55 AM
:bs:

TennisViewer531
05-16-2009, 11:03 AM
It seems weak because one formidable claycourt tennis player is claiming one title after the other... but it's not the weakest.

amonb
05-16-2009, 12:29 PM
It seems weak because one formidable claycourt tennis player is claiming one title after the other... but it's not the weakest.True. No-one ever appreciates what we have now. Always looking into the past. Nadal is an absolute legend, and i'm a Murray fan!!!!

fred perry
05-16-2009, 12:53 PM
ironic that the weakest era ever produces the greatest clay courter ever. :wavey:

bjurra
05-16-2009, 03:25 PM
There is a lack of really strong clay court specialists at the moment, there is no denying that. The fact is that the best players on clay at the moment actually prefer other surfaces, Nadal excluded.

That been said, Rafa would be no 1 in any era and Fed would be a strong contender for second place. Remember how he was toying with Coria already back in 2003, who then was regarded as almost unbeatable on the surface. Muster was good but he only reached the final once at RG. Guga is a strong contender for 2nd place. Bruguera? Now please, THAT was a mug era!

MacTheKnife
05-16-2009, 03:29 PM
ironic that the weakest era ever produces the greatest clay courter ever. :wavey:

That is something to think about.

Action Jackson
05-16-2009, 03:42 PM
That been said, Rafa would be no 1 in any era and Fed would be a strong contender for second place. Remember how he was toying with Coria already back in 2003, who then was regarded as almost unbeatable on the surface. Muster was good but he only reached the final once at RG. Guga is a strong contender for 2nd place. Bruguera? Now please, THAT was a mug era!

Interesting there you use Coria as a gauge for how Fed would go in any era, that's the match up issue. Yes, you aren't a Bruguera fan, but do you think Fed is going to get anything much under shoulder high on the backhand side from Bruguera in a rally? Sergi peppering that side all day, unlike Muster, who hated being attacked, look at his record against serve/volleyers on clay 0-10 against Edberg, he had excellent passing shots.

Was Agassi a better overall claycourt player than Muster, because he had a better record at RG, but the thing that helps Federer a lot, is that the kind of playing style on clay that bothers him isn't played by anyone else besides Nadal or if anyone does it, they aren't good enough to expose his flaws. Considering on clay these days for the most part the ball is coming hip or stomach height to Federer at best.

marcRD
05-16-2009, 05:55 PM
Federer could slice all day against Bruguera on clay, Federer 2006 would pretty much destroy Bruguera on clay. Federers problem against Nadal is that he cant use the slice to get out of uncomfortable positions on his backhand. Bruguera lost to Sampras on clay in Roland Garros, I doubt he would be much of a problem to Federer.

And Agassi is greater on clay than Muster. Muster is greater in mickey mouse tournaments and middle sized tournaments but Agassi simply didnt care about those tournaments and always did much greater in Roland Garros and the grand slams means everything in tennis, the grand slams are your legacy.

prima donna
05-16-2009, 06:15 PM
Federers problem against Nadal is that he cant use the slice to get out of uncomfortable positions on his backhand.
Excellent point.

Action Jackson
05-16-2009, 08:11 PM
Federer could slice all day against Bruguera on clay, Federer 2006 would pretty much destroy Bruguera on clay. Federers problem against Nadal is that he cant use the slice to get out of uncomfortable positions on his backhand. Bruguera lost to Sampras on clay in Roland Garros, I doubt he would be much of a problem to Federer.


Bruguera was coming back from injury after fucking up his ankle in the early part of the year. Considering the clay season is where he peaked and he missed a major amount of base work and was losing early matches in his comeback events. Lack of fitness base, then look what happened to your beloved Federer when he had the glandular fever, it's ok for one and not the other.

In other words you are throwing something out there and not looking into all of the facts. When Bruguera was fit at RG, he handled Sampras comfortably. Slice didn't bother Bruguera on clay, other surfaces yes, he could get rushed on his forehand. The slice to Berasategui would work, only after going to his forehand.

And Agassi is greater on clay than Muster. Muster is greater in mickey mouse tournaments and middle sized tournaments but Agassi simply didnt care about those tournaments and always did much greater in Roland Garros and the grand slams means everything in tennis, the grand slams are your legacy.

Gaudio must be better than Corretja on clay then, going by the above logic, anyone who thinks that is kidding, not even Gaudio's family would say he was better than Corretja. Muster beat Agassi at RG, the only time they played, so that is just the same as you going on about Sampras beating Bruguera in 96, without knowing the facts leading in and that goes for both results.

LinkMage
04-19-2010, 12:45 AM
Monte Carlo shows us this once again. :D

Nadull beating past his prime Ferrero, Ferrer who is also past his best, and mental midget Verdasco who is better on hard courts anyways.

KoOlMaNsEaN
04-19-2010, 12:47 AM
What's weaker?
Having a great player dominate average players or a bunch of average players going for the title???

rocketassist
04-19-2010, 12:49 AM
What's weaker?
Having a great player dominate average players or a bunch of average players going for the title???

If you think the likes of Muster, Bruguera, Chang, Kafelnikov and Guga when they were all competing at the same time were 'average' then I'm sending you a therapist.

CyBorg
04-19-2010, 01:18 AM
And Agassi is greater on clay than Muster. Muster is greater in mickey mouse tournaments and middle sized tournaments but Agassi simply didnt care about those tournaments and always did much greater in Roland Garros and the grand slams means everything in tennis, the grand slams are your legacy.

What a stupid post.

rocketassist
04-19-2010, 01:25 AM
Agreed, no way in any form is Agassi better than Muster in a million years on clay and that's coming from an AA fan.

emotion
04-19-2010, 01:27 AM
weakest grass court era

Corswandt
04-19-2010, 01:28 AM
Weakest clay court era in history

I don't think so.

It's just that Nadal is so good that he makes everybody else look completely hapless. His game is the claycourt game taken to its logical extreme. He'd beat the great claycourters of the past almost as handily as he rapes his current bitches.

Har-Tru
04-19-2010, 01:32 AM
Verdasco who is better on hard courts anyways.

Verdasco's best surface is clay, I've said it all along.

Pirata.
04-19-2010, 02:01 AM
Verdasco's best surface is clay, I've said it all along.

Are you serious? Most of his best results have come on hard courts.

Forehander
04-19-2010, 02:07 AM
Nah

ys
04-19-2010, 02:18 AM
Agreed, no way in any form is Agassi better than Muster in a million years on clay and that's coming from an AA fan.

Agassi made it to RG finals 3 times. What about Muster?

Har-Tru
04-19-2010, 02:27 AM
Are you serious? Most of his best results have come on hard courts.

Yes I am serious and no his best results aren't on hard. He's been in 11 finals, 5 on hard, 5 on clay and 1 on grass, won 4 titles, 2 on hard and 2 on clay. That despite the fact that there are twice as many hard court tournaments as clay tournaments.

rocketassist
04-19-2010, 02:31 AM
weakest grass court era

That is definitely also true.

andy neyer
04-19-2010, 04:19 AM
Weakest Internet posting era.

federersforehand
04-19-2010, 04:25 AM
weakest weakest era

ossie
04-19-2010, 09:16 AM
even if this was the strongest clay era nadal would still be head and shoulders above everyone else, if you cant see this your delusional

fabolous
04-19-2010, 01:31 PM
weakest grass court era
weakest specialist era, simple as that.

where is lessthanjake by the way, i miss his flawed logic and contradicting arguments when it comes to this topic.

rocketassist
04-19-2010, 02:03 PM
even if this was the strongest clay era nadal would still be head and shoulders above everyone else, if you cant see this your delusional

He would obviously do well in any clay era, but he wouldn't be as monopolising obviously.

marcRD
04-19-2010, 02:17 PM
Nadal would lose 20 games this MC in the Guga era and maybe a set in the Borg era.

He would defeat Muster 6-3 6-1, I really belive this matchup would be horrible as Muster wouldnt have a weapon against Nadal and Nadal is better in every area of the game than Muster.

Bruguera, Corretja, Moya and Costa would all be humiliated. Costa I think lost to a 16 year old Nadal in Monte Carlo straight sets and so did Moya.

Guga would be interesting because it may be the only onehanded backhand which really could take Nadal's heavy topspin without much problem, Guga was very tall and I think he could be a difficult match for Nadal at times because he also had a big serve which is important to take away some of the stress of having Nadal at the other side of the net. Guga was very slow and it would be important for him to be aggresive all the time and not let Nadal push him around, interesting matchup it would be where Nadal obviously still is the greater player and would only occasionaly have trouble against Guga.

Borg-Nadal is the most interesting matchup, we dont know how Borg would play with a modern raquet and he wouldnt be mentaly or physicaly exhausted by having to play 20 to 30 stroke rallys with Nadal. Borg pratically invented the heavy topspin game and Nadal perfected it with his modern raquet. I think Nadal is a slightly better athlete than Borg (who also was a great athlete), which is the only reason I give him an advantage because otherwise it is too difficult to predict what kind of tennis Borg would be able to play with a modern raquet.

Vilas would lose 6-0 6-2 much like he lost to Borg all the time on clay, it is funny Reed wrote in his GOAT blog that Vilas at his time was unbeatable on clay much like Nadal is today, that clown Reed clearly didnt watch tennis at the time or else he would know that Borg was like Nadal and Vilas was more like Djokovic or Federer (always losing finals and semifinals) except the beatdowns he recieved were alot uglier than the ones Federer and Djokovic recieve.

Wilander and Lendl are other players I think Nadal would easily beat all the time. Lendl mostly because of his onehanded backhand which wouldnt be good against Nadal on clay and Wilander because he didnt have any big weapon. Rosewall would be completely destroyed if he was to use a modern raquet, Nadal's topspin would jump so high on the short man's backhand side and having the slice as your main weapon against Nadal on clay is not a good idea at all, Nadal would eat Rosewall's slice without any effort at all.

Action Jackson
04-19-2010, 02:29 PM
Marc, you almost got it right with Borg, but Rosewall is not going to play the same game now, as he did then and vice versa for Nadal.

Har-Tru
04-19-2010, 02:35 PM
Cross-era comparisons are, in my humble opinion, pointless.

marcRD
04-19-2010, 02:39 PM
Marc, you almost got it right with Borg, but Rosewall is not going to play the same game now, as he did then and vice versa for Nadal.

I dont think a player with Rosewall's heigh can even be a top player today. His physical shortcomings would simply be enought to make it impossible for him to beat Nadal, if not you consider that today people are taller and Rosewall maybe could be atleast 2 inches taller. Even pretending his physical shortcomings wouldnt matter you have a player who in any era would depend on the slice (the greatest slice of all time) and that would be enought to make Nadal a terrible matchup for him because Nadal wont let you use the slice, specialy not on clay.

marcRD
04-19-2010, 02:43 PM
Cross-era comparisons are, in my humble opinion, pointless.

Maybe they are, but I find it kind of fun to speculate on questions I wont ever find an answer. All we have is our own imaginative universe where these legends face each other on equal terms and then we try to imagine how their game would adapt to new technology and who would be good and bad matchups against players today. It is a fun nonsense discussion which appeals to me, I dont really know why.

Action Jackson
04-19-2010, 02:46 PM
I dont think a player with Rosewall's heigh can even be a top player today. His physical shortcomings would simply be enought to make it impossible for him to beat Nadal, if not you consider that today people are taller and Rosewall maybe could be atleast 2 inches taller. Even pretending his physical shortcomings wouldnt matter you have a player who in any era would depend on the slice (the greatest slice of all time) and that would be enought to make Nadal a terrible matchup for him because Nadal wont let you use the slice, specialy not on clay.

You still miss the point. They aren't going to play the same way as they did in their peaks, because we don't have machines that turn back or fast forward time.

Is Nadal going to be as good with a wooden racquet and get that spin at that pace, obviously not and he isn't going to be as tall or as strong back then.

In other words no point at all comparing anything that is that far apart in time, even Guga who is an easier comparison to make has a lot of problems with that.

You have shown how pointless it is.

Har-Tru
04-19-2010, 02:58 PM
Maybe they are, but I find it kind of fun to speculate on questions I wont ever find an answer. All we have is our own imaginative universe where these legends face each other on equal terms and then we try to imagine how their game would adapt to new technology and who would be good and bad matchups against players today. It is a fun nonsense discussion which appeals to me, I dont really know why.

I know, but every player plays in his era with its conditions, technology and opponents... ah well, to each his own. ;)

marcRD
04-19-2010, 02:59 PM
You still miss the point. They aren't going to play the same way as they did in their peaks, because we don't have machines that turn back or fast forward time.

Is Nadal going to be as good with a wooden racquet and get that spin at that pace, obviously not and he isn't going to be as tall or as strong back then.

In other words no point at all comparing anything that is that far apart in time, even Guga who is an easier comparison to make has a lot of problems with that.

You have shown how pointless it is.

This whole thread starts on the premise that eras can be compared, as in saying one era is weaker than another. If you want to post anything in this thread you have to compare eras or you can complain about the utter pointlessness of the thread, which would be an even more pointless thing to do in itself.

Maybe the other way to see it is to not compare the players with each other but the conditions which gave greater competition in past eras, that is slower clay and more specialists and things like that. My own argument that I already have presented to you before is that the specialists are utterly overrated and the great claycourters have always been European baseliners who could play in more than one surface like Borg, Nadal, Lendl, Wilander and Federer. My argument is that the specialist era of the 90s existed not only because clay was slower but because of the absense of any great European player in that era who was not a serve and volleyer (Edberg and Becker).

So the 90s clay era in the absense of any great european players was instead dominated by specialists who couldnt produce any results outside clay, that is very much unlike the 70s and 80s when Wilander, Lendl, Borg and Vilas didnt let any specialist win anything at all on clay, you put Muster and Bruguera in the 70s and 80s and they would be dominated by the greats of that era and the same goes when you have them play in the Nadal era.

Action Jackson
04-19-2010, 03:11 PM
You're dreaming Marc. How can Lendl and the like be compared with Laver and then Laver with Nadal. Lets be serious how can things be compared properly with the mass differences in technology and physiology through the years. That's right they can't.

Within a smaller timeframe there is more scope, but even that is clearly flawed. Just come out and say Nadal is the greatest thing ever on clay and spare the bullshit.

The clay was slower in the 80s and technology as well, which you have failed to address.

Mjau!
04-19-2010, 03:41 PM
There is a lack of really strong clay court specialists at the moment, there is no denying that. The fact is that the best players on clay at the moment actually prefer other surfaces, Nadal excluded.

That been said, Rafa would be no 1 in any era and Fed would be a strong contender for second place. Remember how he was toying with Coria already back in 2003, who then was regarded as almost unbeatable on the surface. Muster was good but he only reached the final once at RG. Guga is a strong contender for 2nd place. Bruguera? Now please, THAT was a mug era!

/thread

This is a hardcourt-era.

Start da Game
04-19-2010, 03:48 PM
if any field is reasonably strong these days, it's clay........we don't have too many players who can play on grass and also we don't have too many players who know how to play on hardcourts........but on clay, at least we have players who play in a manner how the game is meant to be played on the surface to bring out most effectiveness........

forget about grass, we are definitely in a clown era on grass, especially since the time when serve and volleyers started disappearing one by one........

as for hardcourts, finishing points is such a vital facet........80% of the field today don't finish the points correctly........it's errors most of the times or an occasional winner.......

there are so many players who hit brilliantly from the back.......they pin the opponent to the corners but don't know how to move forward and kill the point, they are not amazingly good from the back either.......by not moving forward, they are letting the opponent back in the point and hoping for an error.......so many players in the last 7 or 8 years have ended up being clowns instead of slam winners mainly due to that reason.......

marcRD
04-19-2010, 03:48 PM
You're dreaming Marc. How can Lendl and the like be compared with Laver and then Laver with Nadal. Lets be serious how can things be compared properly with the mass differences in technology and physiology through the years. That's right they can't.

Within a smaller timeframe there is more scope, but even that is clearly flawed. Just come out and say Nadal is the greatest thing ever on clay and spare the bullshit.

The clay was slower in the 80s and technology as well, which you have failed to address.

I dont know why I have to adress something we all know, that clay was slower in the 80s and technology was less advanced.

We are in a thread that is all about comparing eras, that is what I am doing just like anyone else here. Comparing eras is not a science, we wont ever get to absolute truths by having this discussion. There is no denying that this still is worthwhile discussion to have because it is very stimulating for tennis fans, just like other sport fans love to compare the legends with each other despite the changes every sport make over time. In some cases it is alot easier, there is no doubt that Usain Bolt would win against Jesse Owens if they would face each other today. In tennis it is very complicated but if we are not to have speculative discussions like these we wouldnt have that much to discuss at all, I find the discussions comparing era the most interesting mostly because it is complicated and it requires alot of knowledge about tennis to make a proper evaluation, something I dont claim to have at all, I am open to be corrected but then it must be with arguments that make sense.

In the end there are 2 ways of evaluating the place in history tennis players should have. There is the objective way which is comparing numbers, but even then it can get subjective as in which numbers to count, like if we count the number of grand slams won as the most important number we cant include players before the open era in the discussion.

Nr2 would be the subjective way of evaluating the kind of competition each player had, weak and strong eras and if technology and surfaces made it more easy for players to dominate a specific era, or if the game got more international and therefor must have become thougher at times. This goes ever on and on, I mean it is really impossible to get to any conclusions, but this one is still more interesting than nr1, because people really share their thoughts on tennis and dont simply count numbers (which really fascinate me aswell, but just not that much).

zeleni
04-19-2010, 03:52 PM
Uncompetitive doesn't mean weak. This is era of clay GOAT. :drive:

Action Jackson
04-19-2010, 03:58 PM
I dont know why I have to adress something we all know, that clay was slower in the 80s and technology was less advanced.

If you know that, then don't be inconsistent in applying it and failing to take into account what happened in their particular era in an attempt to bump up Nadal and denigrate everything that happened before it.

It's simple Nadal would be great in any era on clay, for the very simple reason is that champions would be champions in any era as those qualities that make to the pinnacle transcend through generations, the same is true for the other greats.

marcRD
04-19-2010, 03:59 PM
Uncompetitive doesn't mean weak. This is era of clay GOAT. :drive:

Exactly, uncompetitive doesnt mean weak. Most in MTF doesnt know the differense between the two, but if uncompetitive means weak then Usain Bolts, Michael Phelps and Michael Johnsons respective eras in swimming and track and field would be weak and that is not the case at all.

Action Jackson
04-19-2010, 04:03 PM
Exactly, uncompetitive doesnt mean weak. Most in MTF doesnt know the differense between the two, but if uncompetitive means weak then Usain Bolts, Michael Phelps and Michael Johnsons respective eras in swimming and track and field would be weak and that is not the case at all.

Try the mens high jump in the late 80s to 2000 that was very competitive with a great generation of jumpers jumping very good heights consistently.

So Schumacher when he killed everyone in F1 that was competitive, yeah ok.

marcRD
04-19-2010, 04:14 PM
If you know that, then don't be inconsistent in applying it and failing to take into account what happened in their particular era in an attempt to bump up Nadal and denigrate everything that happened before it.

It's simple Nadal would be great in any era on clay, for the very simple reason is that champions would be champions in any era as those qualities that make to the pinnacle transcend through generations, the same is true for the other greats.

I dont really belive greats would simply be great in any era, in life circumstances play a big role in how far you can get with your specific talent. I dont belive Nadal would be all that great with a wooden raquet at all and definetly not in eras when tennis was almost only played on grasscourts and indoor wood surface. I think Nadal represent the best on clay you can be with the modern raquet technology available today, I think greats would find ways to be great players in most eras but sometimes they would find conditions or matchups which would limit their success.

Like Rosewall wouldnt win a single french open where he to play at the same time with Borg, I really belive so. Still it doesnt diminish what he achieved in his era, he would in fact be unlucky to play with such a great force as Borg, because these kind of players dont come around very often in tennis. Vilas was extremly unlucky to play in the Borg era, there is no doubt about this in my mind, he was a greater claycourter than a onetime RG winner, that is for sure.

Edberg wouldnt do too good in this era because grasscourts got slower and raquet technology make the passing shot easier to make. Serve and volleying got obscolete, what make greats great is that they dealt with circumstances in their time and found their way to become champions. But if we are to compare eras each one of us must come to conclusions that every legend would not be that great in any giving era. If Sampras and Federer would play at the same time they would probably steal enought glory from each other for neither player to become GOAT, it is very complicated in a sport like tennis to compare the glory of players taking in the subjective opinions about the competition faced, but that is what we are trying to do here so open up your mind about it instead of complaining.

marcRD
04-19-2010, 04:15 PM
So Schumacher when he killed everyone in F1 that was competitive, yeah ok.

Not competitive, but doesnt mean it was a weak era. Competitive doesnt mean strong and uncompetitive doesnt mean weak. I actually am of the opinion that Schumacher faced kind of weak competition and that he had an advantage in technology over the rest of the field that no other formula1 driver ever had.

90s clay era was competitive but weak imo, Borg's era was uncompetitive but strong.


Try the mens high jump in the late 80s to 2000 that was very competitive with a great generation of jumpers jumping very good heights consistently.

Yeah, sometimes sports dont progress at all but gets unpopular among kids or maybe dont get financed by communist regimes anymore (gymnastics, throwing sports in track and field). In high jump competition got worse and the field got weaker, but I doubt the same has happened to tennis even if I dont have absolute proof that the field hasnt got weaker.

Action Jackson
04-19-2010, 04:23 PM
I dont really belive greats would simply be great in any era, in life circumstances play a big role in how far you can get with your specific talent. I dont belive Nadal would be all that great with a wooden raquet at all and definetly not in eras when tennis was almost only played on grasscourts and indoor wood surface. I think Nadal represent the best on clay you can be with the modern raquet technology available today, I think greats would find ways to be great players in most eras but sometimes they would find conditions or matchups which would limit their success.

You keep proving my point over and over. You expect these players to play the same way, when it's not going to be possible, that is where the other champion qualities come through to the top. Nadal with wood, no he wouldn't be the same player, neither would Edberg if he played today, why apply it to situations that aren't plausible.

So how can you apply Nadal to playing with the racquets and strings Borg, Lendl and Wilander used and expect him to better than them with any clarity? You can't for the obvious reasons as Har-Tru stated.

marcRD
04-19-2010, 04:42 PM
You keep proving my point over and over. You expect these players to play the same way, when it's not going to be possible, that is where the other champion qualities come through to the top. Nadal with wood, no he wouldn't be the same player, neither would Edberg if he played today, why apply it to situations that aren't plausible.

So how can you apply Nadal to playing with the racquets and strings Borg, Lendl and Wilander used and expect him to better than them with any clarity? You can't for the obvious reasons as Har-Tru stated.

I dont know what your point is, but my point is that you can throw in any player in the history of the sport and let them adapt their game to modern raquets and I cant see any of them beating Nadal.

On the other hand I agree that if you let Nadal adapt his game to play with a wooden raquet it would hurt his game and he wouldnt be able to dominate like he does with a modern raquet, his overdependence on the topspin he generates to break down the backhand of his opponents is what makes me doubt his success with a wooden raquet. I still think he would be greater than Wilander or Lendl, probably not at the level of Borg who was a more complete player.

Anyway this thread is about this clay era beeing weak, even the weakest in history which clearly is not the case, we have 3 top players who all grew up on clay dominating tennis which was not the case in the 90s when we had avarage players specialising on clay and the top players not that good on clay at all (Agassi, Sampras, Becker and Edberg).

Action Jackson
04-19-2010, 04:56 PM
I dont know what your point is, but my point is that you can throw in any player in the history of the sport and let them adapt their game to modern raquets and I cant see any of them beating Nadal.

You have overrated Nadal to the point of forgetting anyone else existed beforehand. You can't have it both ways and that is what you are doing. Comparisons over that length of time are very flawed and you haven't taken everything into account. This is my point then and you are still doing it now.

As for this era, it's hardcourters playing tennis on clay apart from Nadal.

l_mac
04-19-2010, 05:11 PM
Technology has changed the way players play on every surface, including clay.

If Nadal weren't around there would be more players winning tournaments, and this era would look more competitive and I'd imagine that people here would then think it was a "stronger" era. But all it would mean that the best player, and one of the few on the circuit whose game looks like it belongs on a clay court, would be missing. Nadal makes this clay era stronger, IMO.

I am laughing long and loud at people highlighting the 90s as a great time for clay tennis. :lol:

rocketassist
04-19-2010, 05:14 PM
if any field is reasonably strong these days, it's clay........we don't have too many players who can play on grass and also we don't have too many players who know how to play on hardcourts........but on clay, at least we have players who play in a manner how the game is meant to be played on the surface to bring out most effectiveness........

forget about grass, we are definitely in a clown era on grass, especially since the time when serve and volleyers started disappearing one by one........

as for hardcourts, finishing points is such a vital facet........80% of the field today don't finish the points correctly........it's errors most of the times or an occasional winner.......

there are so many players who hit brilliantly from the back.......they pin the opponent to the corners but don't know how to move forward and kill the point, they are not amazingly good from the back either.......by not moving forward, they are letting the opponent back in the point and hoping for an error.......so many players in the last 7 or 8 years have ended up being clowns instead of slam winners mainly due to that reason.......

Hardcourts is the only strong surface at the moment with any kind of competitive field- Federer, Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro, Davydenko and Roddick are all hardcourt players and all can strike a flat ball (well Roddick used to be able to).

None of these guys prefer clay nor are any of these guys, Federer excepted, anywhere near as strong as the clay stars of the early 2000s such as Costa, Gaudio, Coria, JCF at his peak, Corretja, Kuerten, Norman et al. Only Nadal is of a high level.

Both clay and grass are frighteningly feeble at the moment. If it's just hard courts that are strong, then as a whole the tour is lacking in variety, IMO.

rocketassist
04-19-2010, 05:17 PM
Technology has changed the way players play on every surface, including clay.

If Nadal weren't around there would be more players winning tournaments, and this era would look more competitive and I'd imagine that people here would then think it was a "stronger" era. But all it would mean that the best player, and one of the few on the circuit whose game looks like it belongs on a clay court, would be missing. Nadal makes this clay era stronger, IMO.

I am laughing long and loud at people highlighting the 90s as a great time for clay tennis. :lol:

One player alone doth not an era make. Of course it'd be even weaker if he wasn't here, there wouldn't be a single naturalised clay court topspin player to play on the surface even if his domination is boring. Not a single natural dirtballer doing well, would make clay like hardcourts #2.

Muster and Bruguera played Nadal-esque styles on clay (then again Nadal probably invented topspin to you)

rocketassist
04-19-2010, 05:20 PM
You can decide the strength by taking the best player of each clay period out and analysing the level of competition.

Take Nadal out of this period, then take Kuerten out of the early 2000s, Muster out of the early to mid 90s, Lendl out of the 80s and Borg out of the late 70s/early 80s.

That is how you judge it.

rocketassist
04-19-2010, 05:21 PM
I dont know what your point is, but my point is that you can throw in any player in the history of the sport and let them adapt their game to modern raquets and I cant see any of them beating Nadal.

On the other hand I agree that if you let Nadal adapt his game to play with a wooden raquet it would hurt his game and he wouldnt be able to dominate like he does with a modern raquet, his overdependence on the topspin he generates to break down the backhand of his opponents is what makes me doubt his success with a wooden raquet. I still think he would be greater than Wilander or Lendl, probably not at the level of Borg who was a more complete player.

Anyway this thread is about this clay era beeing weak, even the weakest in history which clearly is not the case, we have 3 top players who all grew up on clay dominating tennis which was not the case in the 90s when we had avarage players specialising on clay and the top players not that good on clay at all (Agassi, Sampras, Becker and Edberg).

I'd love to know no 3. Djokovic? He PALES compared to any great clay courter.

Persimmon
04-19-2010, 05:46 PM
Same can be said for the current grass-court era. There are no more grass-court specialists anymore No more players like Boris Becker, Pat Cash, Stefan Edberg, Tim Henman, etc. :wavey:

LeChuck
04-19-2010, 05:48 PM
In my opinion there are considerably fewer dangerous floaters around on clay (or grass) to light up the draws and worry the big guns. It's too simplistic to look merely at Nadal, Federer and Djokovic. You need to look at the rest of the field as well. The clay court field is heavily dominated by hard courters who play the same way on every surface. The ever increasing number of South American players on the tour who are more comfortable on hard courts than clay further weakens the clay court scene as well. Nothing against Nadal. He is best player on clay that I've seen since I started following tennis by a sizeable distance. I think that the current weak clay court field probably makes him look worse than he is, because he very rarely needs to shift out 1st of 2nd gear most of the time.

Of course in contrast the strength in depth on hard courts is much better nowadays than it was in the 90s, which a considerably higher % of players viewing it as their strongest surface. It's no surprise that the Australian and US Opens generally have many more exciting and high quality matches throughout the fortnight than either RG or Wimbledon.

Start da Game
04-19-2010, 06:07 PM
Hardcourts is the only strong surface at the moment with any kind of competitive field- Federer, Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro, Davydenko and Roddick are all hardcourt players and all can strike a flat ball (well Roddick used to be able to).

None of these guys prefer clay nor are any of these guys, Federer excepted, anywhere near as strong as the clay stars of the early 2000s such as Costa, Gaudio, Coria, JCF at his peak, Corretja, Kuerten, Norman et al. Only Nadal is of a high level.

Both clay and grass are frighteningly feeble at the moment. If it's just hard courts that are strong, then as a whole the tour is lacking in variety, IMO.

i think the problem with concluding that hardcourts has more depth today is that, there are not many players who have the skill to finish points.......

on clay, you don't necessarily need to move forward and finish points.......you can do it from the back.......but on hards, you must have that skill because top players like fed or nadal expose you at the net.......we saw countless times over the years davydenko catching federer off the guard from the baseline but just doesn't know what to do next i.e, how to end the point.......

marcRD
04-19-2010, 06:12 PM
I'd love to know no 3. Djokovic? He PALES compared to any great clay courter.

I dont agree at all, I think he is better on clay than Costa, Corretja, Kafelnikov, Moya and many others from the 90s era.

rocketassist
04-19-2010, 06:15 PM
I dont agree at all, I think he is better on clay than Costa, Corretja, Kafelnikov, Moya and many others from the 90s era.

Ooooooooooookay.

marcRD
04-19-2010, 06:18 PM
As for this era, it's hardcourters playing tennis on clay apart from Nadal.

I dont think Federer is more of a hardcourter than Lendl was, Djokovic is not more a hardcourter than Courier was.

It is far better to have allsurface players beeing the greats on clay than having players like Muster and Bruguera taking home clay titles while the greats (Sampras, Agassi..) cant adapt properly to the surface.

Action Jackson
04-19-2010, 06:25 PM
I dont think Federer is more of a hardcourter than Lendl was, Djokovic is not more a hardcourter than Courier was.

It is far better to have allsurface players beeing the greats on clay than having players like Muster and Bruguera taking home clay titles while the greats (Sampras, Agassi..) cant adapt properly to the surface.

Courier actually hit with more topspin on clay than he did on hardcourt, he adjusted his limited game for the surface. He was primarily a hardcourt player just like Djokovic is, except he was better on clay.

Federer hits more drop shots but he hardly adjusts his game, but can do so. Lendl didn't have the facilities, he was very good on 3 surfaces. Lendl did not play the same on clay as he did on hardcourts, in other words the surfaces were different enough in addition to the different movement. That the one style suits all surfaces was not a factor.

If you like hardcourt players who don't adjust their games to different surfaces, then that is fine but each particular era has its own strengths and weaknesses. But keep just following recent trends.

Vida
04-19-2010, 06:25 PM
I dont think Federer is more of a hardcourter than Lendl was, Djokovic is not more a hardcourter than Courier was.

It is far better to have allsurface players beeing the greats on clay than having players like Muster and Bruguera taking home clay titles while the greats (Sampras, Agassi..) cant adapt properly to the surface.

federer's and djokovic's game on clay is different than on hard courts and not only to extent of the surface (like different type of movement) but tactically. federer always used clay to play clay court tennis, while djokovic kind of learned past few years.

sad thing is at the top its only those players of whom you can say play clay court tennis, but that must be a consequence of the fact there is overall a big gap in talent between top players and the rest.

marcRD
04-19-2010, 06:35 PM
Courier actually hit with more topspin on clay than he did on hardcourt, he adjusted his limited game for the surface. He was primarily a hardcourt player just like Djokovic is, except he was better on clay.

Federer hits more drop shots but he hardly adjusts his game, but can do so. Lendl didn't have the facilities, he was very good on 3 surfaces. Lendl did not play the same on clay as he did on hardcourts, in other words the surfaces were different enough in addition to the different movement. That the one style suits all surfaces was not a factor.

If you like hardcourt players who don't adjust their games to different surfaces, then that is fine but each particular era has its own strengths and weaknesses. But keep just following recent trends.

I think Federer's game on clay is very different than his hardcourt game, I really dont know if we are watching the same matches when you say he only drop shots a little more often. He barely uses the slice on clay and he is alot more patient, his point construction is very different using more topspin and angles with his forehand and he even stands further back to return serves.

I also need to mention that Federer's movement on clay is really good and so is Djokovic's, better than Courier's I would say even if I agree Djokovic doesnt change the rest of his game as much as Courier to play on clay (mostly because he doesnt have to, it wouldnt give him a better shot against Nadal to play with more topspin). I am fairly sure Courier was very fortunate to win clay grand slams in his weak era, the weakest clay era of all time in my opinion (early 90s). That is an opinion only ofcourse, but I think Courier is far beneath many onetime RG winners like Vilas, Federer and Muster.

Corey Feldman
04-19-2010, 06:37 PM
:zzz:

Action Jackson
04-19-2010, 06:41 PM
I think Federer's game on clay is very different than his hardcourt game, I really dont know if we are watching the same matches when you say he only drop shots a little more often. He barely uses the slice on clay and he is alot more patient, his point construction is very different using more topspin and angles with his forehand and he even stands further back to return serves.

Federer does what he needs to do, yes he uses the dropshot a lot more than he does on other surfaces. He moves well on all surfaces, but that is not relevant at all.

Based on the games of the other players today, who don't have the tools apart from Nadal to expose him on clay.

Action Jackson
04-19-2010, 06:42 PM
:zzz:

Archie Gemmil is not better than Darren Jackson.

Marc, you almost sound like one of those Lutheran priests in Ingmar Bergman movies.

marcRD
04-19-2010, 06:44 PM
Federer does what he needs to do, yes he uses the dropshot a lot more than he does on other surfaces. He moves well on all surfaces, but that is not relevant at all.

Based on the games of the other players today, who don't have the tools apart from Nadal to expose him on clay.

I want to add one more thing, even if a player is more adapted than Federer on clay it doesnt mean he is better than Federer on clay.

Just because Mantilla or Corretja have games more adapted to clay than Federer they are still far worse on the surface than Federer because overall Federer is many times the players Mantilla and Corretja are.

Action Jackson
04-19-2010, 06:49 PM
I want to add one more thing, even if a player is more adapted than Federer on clay it doesnt mean he is better than Federer on clay.

Just because Mantilla or Corretja have games more adapted to clay than Federer they are still far worse on the surface than Federer because overall Federer is many times the players Mantilla and Corretja are.

Nadal is not a better player than Federer, but he is clearly in front in the match up, then again tennis is about match ups.

The match ups on clay today help Federer big time only fool wouldn't see this at all and that helps his record. Only a fool would see that Fedclown isn't very good on the surface.

What are you actually trying to prove? That 2 players make an era that is just shit.

rocketassist
04-19-2010, 06:58 PM
Federer plays, bar Nadal, a bunch of ballbashers and hard court players now.

He doesn't get tested by top quality dirtballers- Nadal beats him with ease, while Guga smoked him in 2004 despite being past it, not to mention Felix Mantilla grinding him into the dirt just weeks before he won Wimbledon for the first time.

I even believe a past it Costa took him out in Rome in 2005 as well. Only truly great clay player he's had the edge on is Coria.

This is what happens when clay god Roger comes up against quality dirt opposition- he struggles.

Vida
04-19-2010, 06:58 PM
dunno, to me it is quite clear how federers game is different on clay than on fast courts. he rallies from way back, is a lot more patient, and plays with a lot more spin of forehand especially.

it simply comes out of his confidence in his game that he can bet them easily that way.

Start da Game
04-19-2010, 07:00 PM
Nadal is not a better player than Federer, but he is clearly in front in the match up, then again tennis is about match ups.

The match ups on clay today help Federer big time only fool wouldn't see this at all and that helps his record. Only a fool would see that Fedclown isn't very good on the surface.

What are you actually trying to prove? That 2 players make an era that is just shit.

only in the forecourt and serve.......and no, nadal is not ahead in the match-up.......fed with his all court skills can expose nadal's weaknesses in serve, slice, volleys.......the fact that he cannot do so doesn't necessarily make nadal the one with the advantage in the match-up.......

marcRD
04-19-2010, 07:27 PM
Nadal is not a better player than Federer, but he is clearly in front in the match up, then again tennis is about match ups.

The match ups on clay today help Federer big time only fool wouldn't see this at all and that helps his record. Only a fool would see that Fedclown isn't very good on the surface.

What are you actually trying to prove? That 2 players make an era that is just shit.

Nadal is not a better player than Federer but the matchupissue makes it possible for him to "expose" Federer on any surface. On clay even more so because Nadal's game is perfect for clay, Federer's is not.

What I was trying to say is that clay does make Federer lose some of his powers (like the ability to hit the ball on the rise and the slice to some extent which exposes his topspin backhand) but not enought for him to be worse than the clay specialist clowns of the 90s. Federer is better than Muster, Kafelnikov, Corretja, Bruguera, Costa and Moya on clay, even with a less adapted game to clay than theirs.

Only a fool wouldnt see that Federer would do alot better in the 90s than playing Nadal in every single clay tournament he enters. I mean the 90s didnt have a single great who could play great on clay, only Agassi did quite good but he barely could move on clay. I mean the 60s had Laver and Rosewall and 70s had Borg and Vilas, the 80s Wilander and Lendl, 2000s Federer and Nadal but what did the 90s have?

Clay was dominated by avarage clowns who specialised on the surface, taking advantage how Sampras, Becker, Edberg and Agassi had difficulties to play on clay. Even Agassi who had a horrible movement on clay was in 3 RG finals. Guga was the only one which I could count as a truly great claycourter, but the early 90s was only competitive and therefor may be interpreted as strong by some but it was really as weak as tennis was overall in the early 2000.

You are going around in circles, you have said yourself that it is impossible to compare different eras and still you keep saying this era is shit.

rocketassist
04-19-2010, 07:36 PM
Nadal is not a better player than Federer but the matchupissue makes it possible for him to "expose" Federer on any surface. On clay even more so because Nadal's game is perfect for clay, Federer's is not.

What I was trying to say is that clay does make Federer lose some of his powers (like the ability to hit the ball on the rise and the slice to some extent which exposes his topspin backhand) but not enought for him to be worse than the clay specialist clowns of the 90s. Federer is better than Muster, Kafelnikov, Corretja, Bruguera, Costa and Moya on clay, even with a less adapted game to clay than theirs.

Only a fool wouldnt see that Federer would do alot better in the 90s than playing Nadal in every single clay tournament he enters. I mean the 90s didnt have a single great who could play great on clay, only Agassi did quite good but he barely could move on clay. I mean the 60s had Laver and Rosewall and 70s had Borg and Vilas, the 80s Wilander and Lendl, 2000s Federer and Nadal but what did the 90s have?

Clay was dominated by avarage clowns who specialised on the surface, taking advantage how Sampras, Becker, Edberg and Agassi had difficulties to play on clay. Even Agassi who had a horrible movement on clay was in 3 RG finals. Guga was the only one which I could count as a truly great claycourter, but the early 90s was only competitive and therefor may be interpreted as strong by some but it was really as weak as tennis was overall in the early 2000.

You are going around in circles, you have said yourself that it is impossible to compare different eras and still you keep saying this era is shit.

Disagree. I'd love to see him play these guys with their heavy topspin kicking up head height to the backhand side and see how clay GOAT Rogi handles that instead of flat ballbashers playing into his hands.

Did you ever watch Felix teach him a lesson in that Rome final? Oh and as for Bruguera... 2 RG >>>> 1 RG

Start da Game
04-19-2010, 07:41 PM
Nadal is not a better player than Federer but the matchupissue makes it possible for him to "expose" Federer on any surface. On clay even more so because Nadal's game is perfect for clay, Federer's is not.

What I was trying to say is that clay does make Federer lose some of his powers but not enought for him to be worse than the clay specialist clowns of the 90s. Federer is better than Muster, Kafelnikov, Corretja, Bruguera, Costa and Moya on clay, even with a less adapted game to clay than theirs.

Only a fool wouldnt see that Federer would do alot better in the 90s than playing Nadal in every single clay tournament he enters. I mean the 90s didnt have a single great who could play great on clay, only Agassi did quite good but he barely could move on clay. I mean the 60s had Laver and Rosewall and 70s had Borg and Vilas, the 80s Wilander and Lendl, 2000s Federer and Nadal but what did the 90s have?

Clay was dominated by avarage clowns who specialised on the surface, taking advantage how Sampras, Becker, Edberg and Agassi had difficulties to play on clay. Even Agassi who had a horrible movement on clay was in 3 RG finals. Guga was the only one which I could count as a truly great claycourter, but the early 90s was only competitive and therefor may be interpreted as strong by some but it was really as weak as tennis was overall in the early 2000.

You are going around in circles, you have said yourself that it is impossible to compare different eras and still you keep saying this era is shit.

really? maybe you should think again.......corretja butchered him in 2001.......when people are ready to hype that 2001 win of fed over grandpa sampras, be ready to face it as well.......fed was young and he wasn't playing all that bad.......i saw that corretja-fed match.......

courier and bruguera were definitely great on clay and better than fed.......courier used to do what nadal does to single handers these days.......

a hip crippled kuerten took fed out in 2004.......quality has always gotten the better of fed.......period.......it holds for all surfaces, not just clay.......he struggled with serve and volleyers on grass initially and not until no one was left that he actually started winning those wimbledon titles.......

if there's any match-up issue in nadal-fed, it actually favors fed who has much complete game than rafa.......there are countless weaknesses in rafa's game that can be exposed compared to just one or two of fed.......

federer's inability to expose nadal's weaknesses don't translate to nadal having the match-up advantage.......

marcRD
04-19-2010, 07:41 PM
Disagree. I'd love to see him play these guys with their heavy topspin kicking up head height to the backhand side and see how clay GOAT Rogi handles that instead of flat ballbashers playing into his hands.

Did you ever watch Felix teach him a lesson in that Rome final? Oh and as for Bruguera... 2 RG >>>> 1 RG

Yeah, I saw also Horna teaching him lessons and Philippoussis beating the crap out of him in the 2003 claycourt season. Obviously Philippoussis must be a better claycourter than Federer because he beat him in his favorite claycourt tournament in 2003, lucky Federer he doesnt have Philippoussis and MAntilla around to stop him from the claycourt success he is having today.

rocketassist
04-19-2010, 07:46 PM
Yeah, I saw also Horna teaching him lessons and Philippoussis beating the crap out of him in the 2003 claycourt season. Obviously Philippoussis must be a better claycourter than Federer because he beat him in his favorite claycourt tournament in 2003, lucky Federer he doesnt have Philippoussis and MAntilla around to stop him from the claycourt success he is having today.

Don't you get what I'm saying? Federer doesn't play any natural dirtballers with topspin that match up well against him on clay. This makes his clay court CV look decidedly better than it would be in other eras.

I mean look last year even Jose fucking Acasuso had him dead and buried, he's a player of that style even if he's been out of form for a while.

habibko
04-19-2010, 08:00 PM
Uncompetitive doesn't mean weak. This is era of clay GOAT. :drive:

this.

we hear the same argument over and over again regarding Federer's dominance, those who can't accept the fact he is head and shoulders above everyone else in the world keep stating that this is an overall weak era and he'd have never done this well in any other era, same applied to Nadal on clay.

rocketassist
04-19-2010, 08:09 PM
this.

we hear the same argument over and over again regarding Federer's dominance, those who can't accept the fact he is head and shoulders above everyone else in the world keep stating that this is an overall weak era and he'd have never done this well in any other era, same applied to Nadal on clay.

No.

The era Fed started to dominate, with Roddick, Hewitt and Safin playing great tennis and an emerging Nadal, was very strong and the fact he was miles above them was a testimony to the unreal level of play he was at.

More natural dirtball players would also mean Nadal having to attack on clay to win matches, when he can win multiple RGs just by standing miles behind the baseline forcing the aggressor into mistakes because they're all brainless ballbashers.

Dougie
04-19-2010, 08:15 PM
No.

The era Fed started to dominate, with Roddick, Hewitt and Safin playing great tennis and an emerging Nadal, was very strong and the fact he was miles above them was a testimony to the unreal level of play he was at.

More natural dirtball players would also mean Nadal having to attack on clay to win matches, when he can win multiple RGs just by standing miles behind the baseline forcing the aggressor into mistakes because they're all brainless ballbashers.

The most common misconception seems to be that Nadal plays like this. But he doesn´t. Yes, he plays from way back and hits with heavy topspin, but he also puts pressure on his opponents, goes for winners, uses angles. He is definitely not just waiting for his opponents to make errors. Players you call "natural dirtballers" were more like this.

Lleyton_
04-19-2010, 08:31 PM
Nadal's biggest rival on clay has been Federer who is not a clay court specialist by any means. Go figure how weak this clay court era is. He has no rivals at all and not just because he is so good. The only players who have had a chance to win anything of significance on clay are Federer and Djoker. So many top players are clueless on clay these days that no wonder Nadal wins most of the tournaments with ease. He peaked in a perfect period where all the past champions were semiretired or retired and his generation was no where near their peak. Just when you think his kryptonite Del Potro can challenge him, he gets injured. Lucky lucky.

marcRD
04-19-2010, 08:33 PM
Don't you get what I'm saying? Federer doesn't play any natural dirtballers with topspin that match up well against him on clay. This makes his clay court CV look decidedly better than it would be in other eras.

I mean look last year even Jose fucking Acasuso had him dead and buried, he's a player of that style even if he's been out of form for a while.

Dont you get what I am saying? That all results Federer had in the claycourt season 2003 doesnt really count for nothing, he lost to fckng Philippoussis in Hamburg, his favorite master series tournament. I watched that joke of a match against Mantilla, Federer was mentaly broken after the 1st set, Federer played on clay like if he was playing on grasscourts slicing all the time with his backhand and also he could barely hit a dropshot. Federer 2003 was a whole different beast than Federer 2006 not only on clay but specialy on clay, even Federer 2004 was kind of not ready for clay.

You want to now suddenly talk about Federer against Acasuso, you could just aswell talk about Federer against Haas which was even more of an atrocity. Like if Muster didnt have bad results, I mean he was owned by every single serve and volleyer on clay, how about Bruguera, the king of RG in the early 90s lost 92 RG to grandpa Lendl 6-4 6-1 6-2! How bad would they fare against real greats?

I mean you want to take individual results and talk how bad it is, Bruguera lost to 33 year old Lendl in a total beatdown, he lost in straightsets against Chang and he lost to claycourt clown Sampras, all the times in RG. You dont think Federer could beat this guy?

marcRD
04-19-2010, 08:36 PM
Nadal's biggest rival on clay has been Federer who is not a clay court specialist by any means. Go figure how weak this clay court era is. He has no rivals at all and not just because he is so good. The only players who have had a chance to win anything of significance on clay are Federer and Djoker. So many top players are clueless on clay these days that no wonder Nadal wins most of the tournaments with ease. He peaked in a perfect period where all the past champions were semiretired or retired and his generation was no where near their peak. Just when you think his kryptonite Del Potro can challenge him, he gets injured. Lucky lucky.

So what? Rosewall's greatest rival was Laver who was not a claycourt specialist. These are the greats, they are still better than Muster, Bruguera, Courier and other clowns who dominated the early 90s.