Who do we all think is the second greatest Clay court player of all time? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who do we all think is the second greatest Clay court player of all time?

reggie1
05-03-2009, 09:00 PM
I've just read a post from another MTF'er saying that Rafa is on his way to being the greatest Clay court player of all time and it got me wondering who you guys would say was the second greatest Clay courter of all time? I'd just be interested to read everyone's opinions as to be honest, I've never watched a huge amount of Clay court tennis in the past, just RG. Thank you :worship:

Action Jackson
05-03-2009, 09:02 PM
Srichaphan or Kenneth Carlsen.

scarecrows
05-03-2009, 09:02 PM
as of now it's Nadal

petar_pan
05-03-2009, 09:04 PM
muster

Bazooka
05-03-2009, 09:06 PM
Open era: Borg.

luie
05-03-2009, 09:14 PM
Nadull.

LinkMage
05-03-2009, 09:15 PM
Nadull, then again his competition is pathetic.

Burrow
05-03-2009, 10:31 PM
Nadal.

Bilbo
05-03-2009, 10:37 PM
T. Muster

shotgun
05-03-2009, 11:15 PM
1. Borg
2. Nadal
3. Muster
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander

Mechlan
05-03-2009, 11:15 PM
Right now, Nadal.

Har-Tru
05-03-2009, 11:42 PM
Nadal.

Bazooka
05-03-2009, 11:48 PM
So most of you naming Nadal as second still have Borg as the greatest, I guess.

Well, not for me any longer. Borg failed to win three USO on clay, Nadal would already have them in the bag. Borg has 6 RG, but did not dominate in every clay tournament the way Nadal does. So Borg may still be the best at RG but not the best "claycourter" in the open era for me.

cobalt60
05-03-2009, 11:58 PM
1. Borg
2. Nadal
3. Muster
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander

When all is said and done, Borg and Nadal will switch places. Where would you all put Vilas ?

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 12:01 AM
Now, seriously (open era):

1. Borg
2. Nadal
3. Kuerten
4. Muster
5. Vilas

Bazooka
05-04-2009, 12:06 AM
Also Lendl is not very popular around here...

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Vilas
4. Muster
5. Kuerten, Lendl, Wilander, Bruguera, Courier

bjurra
05-04-2009, 12:30 AM
Srichaphan or Kenneth Carlsen.

I actually watched these two clowns in Barcelona in 2005. They played the last match on CC on Monday and the tennis was so poor the Spanish crowd started to whistle and jeer.

On topic: Björn Borg

Frank Winkler
05-04-2009, 02:13 AM
borg
nadal
vilas
and then a space

marcRD
05-04-2009, 02:37 AM
Does anyone belive Borgs record 6 RGs stand a chanse to survive with Nadal peaking at 23 and winning his 5th RG if he doesnt get injured?

Nadal will win 8-9 RGs, mark my word.

thrust
05-04-2009, 02:55 AM
borg
nadal
vilas
and then a space

Vilas, you cannot be serious? Probably the most boring match I ever tried to watch was a year end championship in Dallas, between Borg and Vilas. One point was so long I switched the tv channel. When I came back to the match 2 or 3 minutes later, they were still playing the same point! Borg, off grass, was boring. I also saw him at the USO in Forest Hills- BORING!! If only Borg would have played on other surfaces as he did at Wimbledon!

marcRD
05-04-2009, 02:58 AM
Vilas, you cannot be serious? Probably the most boring match I ever tried to watch was a year end championship in Dallas, between Borg and Vilas. One point was so long I switched the tv channel. Borg, off grass, was boring. I also saw him at the USO in Forest Hills- BORING!! If only Borg would have played on other surfaces as he did at Wimbledon!

Yes, one of the tragedies of my life is going back to watch old tapes of mythological heroes of Sweden like Borg and Wilander on clay, just so boring! I love watching both Borg and Wilander anywhere else, but on clay it is just unwatchable.

thrust
05-04-2009, 03:04 AM
Does anyone belive Borgs record 6 RGs stand a chanse to survive with Nadal peaking at 23 and winning his 5th RG if he doesnt get injured?

Nadal will win 8-9 RGs, mark my word.

If he stays healthy and motivated, no doubt he will. If he comes to the net more often, he will win a few more Wimbledons too.

Henry Kaspar
05-04-2009, 03:24 AM
Rosewall, Borg and Nadal are the greatest claycourters of the past 50 years. The order can be debated till the cows come home (as is the case with most GOAT discussions).

LEO_Legionario
05-04-2009, 03:56 AM
1. Borg (6 RG).
2. Nadal
3. Vilas
4. Kuerten
5. Muster

ChinoRios4Ever
05-04-2009, 03:58 AM
Borg
Nadal
Muster

marcRD
05-04-2009, 04:14 AM
1. Borg (6 RG).
2. Nadal
3. Vilas
4. Kuerten
5. Muster

Vilas before Kuerten? Muster better than Wilander or Lendl?

Clearly argentinian bias there, Vilas must be outside top 5, Muster is not in my top 10 list.

1.Nadal
2.Borg
3.Lendl
4.Wilander
5.Kuerten
6.Rosewell
7.Vilas

Thereafter it is a blur. Courier, Bruguera, Federer, Agassi all have similar results in RG. Vilas with 4 RG finals, 3 lost to Borg and one won when Borg chose to not play French Open must be mentioned as the greatest in the group with less than 3 RGs. Agassi, Bruguera, Courier and Federer all have 3 RG finals. Federer is the only one to lose them all, but that is because he faced much, much more difficult opposition in Nadal than the other mentioned. Federer had more success than Courier, Bruguera and Agassi on clay master series with 10 finals and 4 victories.

Muster on the other hand got to only 1 RG final and won against Michael Chang. I would say his 6 clay master series must put him high on the list, but a good performance on grand slams is how tennis players are measured against each other or else Connors would be ranked as the greatest of all time. I also have Ferrero just outside the top 10.

It is difficult to rank players like Federer, Djokovic and Vilas who played in the same era of players who were considered to be unbeatable on clay in both their eras. If you base mostly on results in RG a runner up against Borg or Nadal must count for something, I cant have Bruguera ahead of Vilas because he won 2 RGs, can I?

Action Jackson
05-04-2009, 06:21 AM
US Open was green clay, no red clay and yes they play very differently.

This is the classic use of selective memory.

madlove
05-04-2009, 09:51 AM
borg

Bazooka
05-04-2009, 11:37 AM
US Open was green clay, no red clay and yes they play very differently.

This is the classic use of selective memory.

Vilas and Orantes were good claycourters and won it, Borg failed. This selective memory may be contagious, be careful.

Bazooka
05-04-2009, 11:40 AM
And please, stop the myth, watch this and tell me this court is faster than Rome:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0dMd9q2o6w

that is Borg losing in a clay slam final and sorry, it is not that fast. Nadal would own everybody there and you know it. Hope that helps.

Action Jackson
05-04-2009, 11:43 AM
Vilas and Orantes were good claycourters and won it, Borg failed. This selective memory may be contagious, be careful.

No selective memory, they are different surfaces that is simple, but you wouldn't acknowledge that.

Agassi had a better RG record than Muster, but does make him a better player on the surface, not even Mike Agassi would say Andre was better on clay than Muster

Corretja and Rios are better than Gaudio on clay, but who win the Slam, see this could go on all day. :)

Vilas and Orantes better than Federer.

Merton
05-04-2009, 11:45 AM
1. Borg
2-4. Nadal, Lendl, Wilander

Barring injuries, Nadal will move into clear 2nd after RG.

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 12:31 PM
1. Borg
2-4. Nadal, Lendl, Wilander

Barring injuries, Nadal will move into clear 2nd after RG.

Alright, I do rate Borg above Nadal as of now, but come on, he is clearly above anyone else.

Action Jackson
05-04-2009, 12:37 PM
And please, stop the myth, watch this and tell me this court is faster than Rome:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0dMd9q2o6w

that is Borg losing in a clay slam final and sorry, it is not that fast. Nadal would own everybody there and you know it. Hope that helps.

It's simple red and green clay do play very differently, that's all. Not my fault you can't differentiate they are made up of completely different materials and compacted differently, which impact on the way they play.

Considering surface speeds have got quicker on clay and the game has got faster and more physical, but keep forgetting this.

Bazooka
05-04-2009, 12:38 PM
No selective memory, they are different surfaces that is simple, but you wouldn't acknowledge that.

Agassi had a better RG record than Muster, but does make him a better player on the surface, not even Mike Agassi would say Andre was better on clay than Muster

Corretja and Rios are better than Gaudio on clay, but who win the Slam, see this could go on all day. :)

Vilas and Orantes better than Federer.

My point is it was still clay, And the post is not about red clay but about the greatest clay court tennis player. Borg didn't dominate the way Nadal does, he even got defeated twice in RG by Panatta, which had 5-7 in clay with Borg. And in RG Panatta is 2-1 over Borg. Rafa is simply more dominant than Borg was, is this so hard to admit?

Bazooka
05-04-2009, 12:39 PM
It's simple red and green clay do play very differently, that's all. Not my fault you can't differentiate they are made up of completely different materials and compacted differently, which impact on the way they play.

Considering surface speeds have got quicker on clay and the game has got faster and more physical, but keep forgetting this.

:rolleyes:

We're getting nowhere.

You're telling me it is *not* clay so it doesn't count to see who's the best *clay*courter?

JolánGagó
05-04-2009, 12:47 PM
Second greatest is Borg, this isn't even debatable.

Action Jackson
05-04-2009, 12:51 PM
JG and Har-Tru are funny cats.

marcRD
05-04-2009, 01:03 PM
My point is it was still clay, And the post is not about red clay but about the greatest clay court tennis player. Borg didn't dominate the way Nadal does, he even got defeated twice in RG by Panatta, which had 5-7 in clay with Borg. And in RG Panatta is 2-1 over Borg. Rafa is simply more dominant than Borg was, is this so hard to admit?

I think you better leave american clay out of the debate, you can argue Nadals greatness without trying to argue about what is real clay. Nadal wouldnt be unbeatable on american clay, it was as fast as hardcourts, but ofcourse the sliding would help Nadal.

True, Borg did show himself beatable against Panatta, Rafa has never shown these signs in RG. Borg wasnt as dominate on other tournaments than RG aswell.

Nadal is greater than Borg on clay and all those living in denial saying Borg won 6 French opens which is more than 4, all of them know Nadal is going to reach the number 6 and surpass it if not a miracle happens. So I dont get why they want to just win some time until the day there is nothing to debate anymore, it makes no sense because everybody knows that Nadal is going to win his 5th French open this year and that it wont be his last. I just dont understand this locked position, Nadal is having an ongoing career, Borg had his career already. Who is the greatest claycourter Nadal or Borg? Not who has acomplished more, that is not the question. We all know that Nadal will win more Monte Carlos, Romes and RGs than Borg. In fact he already has more Romes and Monte Carlos, we all know his domination is more complete than the Borg domination on red clay. I have him as nr1, no doubt about it. There are no arguments for Borg other than that 6 RG argument with is getting old.

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 01:09 PM
I think you better leave american clay out of the debate, you can argue Nadals greatness without trying to argue about what is real clay. Nadal wouldnt be unbeatable on american clay, it was as fast as hardcourts, but ofcourse the sliding would help Nadal.

True, Borg did show himself beatable against Panatta, Rafa has never shown these signs in RG. Borg wasnt as dominate on other tournaments than RG aswell.

Nadal is greater than Borg on clay and all those living in denial saying Borg won 6 French opens which is more than 4, all of them know Nadal is going to reach the number 6 and surpass it if not a miracle happens. So I dont get why they want to just win some time until the day there is nothing to debate anymore, it makes no sense because everybody knows that Nadal is going to win his 5th French open this year and that it wont be his last. I just dont understand this locked position, Nadal is having an ongoing career, Borg had his career already. Who is the greatest claycourter Nadal or Borg? Not who has acomplished more, that is not the question. We all know that Nadal will win more Monte Carlos, Romes and RGs than Borg. In fact he already has more Romes and Monte Carlos, we all know his domination is more complete than the Borg domination on red clay. I have him as nr1, no doubt about it. There are no arguments for Borg other than that 6 RG argument with is getting old.

Will Nadal surpass Borg's six RGs? Barring injury or higher catastrophe, he most certainly will. Has he? No.

marcRD
05-04-2009, 01:24 PM
Will Nadal surpass Borg's six RGs? Barring injury or higher catastrophe, he most certainly will. Has he? No.

That means that he has acomplished less than Borg, not that he is second to Borg on clay. If Nadal would die tomorrow he would be remembered as the greatest of all time, this kind of domination on any surface has never been seen in the history of the sport.

ignigena
05-04-2009, 01:40 PM
That means that he has acomplished less than Borg, not that he is second to Borg on clay. If Nadal would die tomorrow he would be remembered as the greatest of all time, this kind of domination on any surface has never been seen in the history of the sport.

agreem, at least on clay Nadal will be considered the best of the open era, by far.

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 01:41 PM
And about Har-Tru (the surface, not me self), it does play significantly faster than Spanish or French clay, only the sliding and other factors make it suitable for some clay courters. You can call it clay or call it pink rabbit. You'd be lying in both cases. In fairness, there isn't really any ATP Tournament that is played on clay.

Action Jackson
05-04-2009, 01:42 PM
And about Har-Tru (the surface, not me self), it does play significantly faster than Spanish or French clay, only the sliding and other factors make it suitable for some clay courters. You can call it clay or call it pink rabbit. You'd be lying in both cases. In fairness, there isn't really any ATP Tournament that is played on clay.

The king of Brick Dust doesn't have the best rings to it, does it?

rafa_maniac
05-04-2009, 01:48 PM
Borg still has Nadal's number purely at the French Open, but clay in general? It's a toss up, but should Nadal become the first player to secure 5 straight RG titles this season, I'd place him first, second until then.

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 02:01 PM
The king of Brick Dust doesn't have the best rings to it, does it?

Clay Rey rhymes.

Action Jackson
05-04-2009, 02:04 PM
Clay Rey rhymes.

That is if we agree on whether the red clay is actually clay or not.

Mike Tyson
05-04-2009, 02:12 PM
1 Nadal
2 ....
3 ....
4 ....
5 ....
6 Borg

Its useless to compare the careers of Borg and Nadal, Nadal is just 23, and still has a long way to go.
While Borgs career is already finished.
But if you look at what nadal has achieved at his current age, and compare that to what Borg had achieved when he was the same age, Nadal takes this easily

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 02:18 PM
That is if we agree on whether the red clay is actually clay or not.

Who cares. It rhymes so IT IS.

Bazooka
05-04-2009, 02:19 PM
1 Nadal
2 ....
3 ....
4 ....
5 ....
6 Borg

Its useless to compare the careers of Borg and Nadal, Nadal is just 23, and still has a long way to go.
While Borgs career is already finished.
But if you look at what nadal has achieved at his current age, and compare that to what Borg had achieved when he was the same age, Nadal takes this easily

Nadal is 22...

Bazooka
05-04-2009, 02:23 PM
And about Har-Tru (the surface, not me self), it does play significantly faster than Spanish or French clay, only the sliding and other factors make it suitable for some clay courters. You can call it clay or call it pink rabbit. You'd be lying in both cases. In fairness, there isn't really any ATP Tournament that is played on clay.

The most similar surface you can find is Rome, but I think Rome is even faster.

My belief, which may be entirely wrong of course, is that Nadal would be undefeatable in a second slam in clay no matter how fast you make it. It's to best of five, where he is 45-0.

I am sure you watched the har-Tru matches live, but please see the vid I linked or others, and tell me if you seriously see that surface is too fast for Nadal, or of it has low bounce, the two possible dangers for Rafa.

Action Jackson
05-04-2009, 02:25 PM
Who cares. It rhymes so IT IS.

Good answer, better than Real Madrid's defence the other night, they could have used Rafa playing for them.

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 02:29 PM
Good answer, better than Real Madrid's defence the other night, they could have used Rafa playing for them.

True dat. It was the only set Nadal lost the whole week.

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 02:38 PM
The most similar surface you can find is Rome, but I think Rome is even faster.

My belief, which may be entirely wrong of course, is that Nadal would be undefeatable in a second slam in clay no matter how fast you make it. It's to best of five, where he is 45-0.

I am sure you watched the har-Tru matches live, but please see the vid I linked or others, and tell me if you seriously see that surface is too fast for Nadal, or of it has low bounce, the two possible dangers for Rafa.

I've watched many matches on Har-Tru and played a lot on it too, and I'm pretty sure Nadal would own everybody if a slam were to be played on it. I'm just reluctant to put it in the same bag as Roland Garros' surface.

Action Jackson
05-04-2009, 02:41 PM
I've watched many matches on Har-Tru and played a lot on it too, and I'm pretty sure Nadal would own everybody if a slam were to be played on it. I'm just reluctant to put it in the same bag as Roland Garros' surface.

Naturally. Look at that fact Jimbo Connors did quite well on green clay, but out of his 30000 titles, none of them came on red clay. One was shared because the final was never played.

CyBorg
05-04-2009, 03:11 PM
US Open was green clay, no red clay and yes they play very differently.

This is the classic use of selective memory.

It is selective - it also ignores that the US Open was on hardcourts when Borg was in his prime.

CyBorg
05-04-2009, 03:14 PM
My point is it was still clay, And the post is not about red clay but about the greatest clay court tennis player. Borg didn't dominate the way Nadal does, he even got defeated twice in RG by Panatta, which had 5-7 in clay with Borg. And in RG Panatta is 2-1 over Borg. Rafa is simply more dominant than Borg was, is this so hard to admit?

One of those defeats was when Borg was 16. The other one was also before Borg's prime.

CyBorg
05-04-2009, 03:17 PM
A lot of unhatched chickens being counted here.

"Nadal will win 10 RGs. He's only 22. How could he not?"

Very similar to...

"Federer will easily break Sampras' record and probably win 20 majors. He's unbeatable." (circa 2006)

STFU, children. It was the exact same shit in 1980 when Borg was winning everything. And then the winning stopped. It always does. Sometimes very suddenly.

Hingisova
05-04-2009, 03:17 PM
Well I don't know if he's got the numbers to support it but I loved Guga...he was entertaining, exciting and a wonderful talent...so he's my pick!!

Bazooka
05-04-2009, 03:19 PM
One of those defeats was when Borg was 16. The other one was also before Borg's prime.

We can also resort to "too old" for some of the Panatta defeats then! Or all 12 matches happened in Panatta's prime?

Nadal HtH in clay is seamless and he's been a pro since he was 14.

CyBorg
05-04-2009, 03:24 PM
We can also resort to "too old" for some of the Panatta defeats then! Or all 12 matches happened in Panatta's prime?

This isn't coherent. Borg was 16. What's so hard to understand?

Nadal HtH in clay is seamless and he's been a pro since he was 14.

Nadal also missed two French Opens in 2003 and 2004, so that helped make his record just a bit more seamless.

Both Borg and Nadal have seamless numbers on clay. I did a calculation of this recently and Borg's peak percentages on clay are around 97%, which is pretty much what Nadal has 2005-present.

justsumma
05-04-2009, 03:36 PM
who will start the first "Do you enjoy the demise of Piggy?" thread?

Bazooka
05-04-2009, 04:00 PM
who will start the first "Do you enjoy the demise of Piggy?" thread?

Probably someone that is not born yet.

Xavier7
05-04-2009, 04:14 PM
In all seriousness probably Federer.
if it just weren't for Nadal he'd have 3 or 4 Roland Garros titles by now, and he has reached tons of finals in Clay Masters eries only generally losing to Nadal until recently.
The Federer of 2-3 years ago I would fancy to beat Kuerten at his peak.

Bazooka
05-04-2009, 04:18 PM
This isn't coherent. Borg was 16. What's so hard to understand?


Panatta was 32 when he lost his last match to Borg, and still took a set.
We either take age and peak under consideration, or we don't. You started with the age and peak thing to justify some Borg losses to Panatta, same can be done with some of his wins.

In the end, there were a couple guys that were a danger for him in clay (Also was 3-3 on clay with Nastase), while Nadal has none so far. And Panatta defeated Borg in RG QF when Borg was nearly 20 and the defending champion.

Borg was a monster and the best at RG ever, just not as dominant overall in clay as Nadal is now...

Mechlan
05-04-2009, 05:15 PM
.
Borg was a monster and the best at RG ever, just not as dominant overall in clay as Nadal is now...

And maybe that also has something to do with their respective levels of competition on the surface.

If it's an objective comparison based on titles, Borg wins. If it's a subjective one like "overall dominance", factors like competitiveness of the field come into it.

Clay Death
05-04-2009, 05:22 PM
another ridiculous thread. isnt the answer a little too obvious?

its Borg. period. he is the 2nd best ever. in a clay world, there are just 6-7 players that can be considered immortal:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Muster
4. Vilas
5. Laver
6. Kuerten
7. Lendl

rafa_maniac
05-04-2009, 05:29 PM
If it's an objective comparison based on titles, Borg wins.

How about other "objective" comparisons? :shrug: Monte Carlo and Rome titles won, winning percentage on clay, winning streaks on clay etc...

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 05:41 PM
another ridiculous thread. isnt the answer a little too obvious?

its Borg. period. he is the 2nd best ever. in a clay world, there are just 6-7 players that can be considered immortal:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Muster
4. Vilas
5. Laver
6. Kuerten
7. Lendl

Ken Rosewall says hello.

rocketassist
05-04-2009, 05:46 PM
In all seriousness probably Federer.
if it just weren't for Nadal he'd have 3 or 4 Roland Garros titles by now, and he has reached tons of finals in Clay Masters eries only generally losing to Nadal until recently.
The Federer of 2-3 years ago I would fancy to beat Kuerten at his peak.

Given a past it Guga pwned him in 2004, I'd imagine prime Guga would spank Roger's arse so hard it was red till Wimbledon.

Bazooka
05-04-2009, 05:53 PM
Ken Rosewall says hello.

Yes, in one thing we should agree: Rosewall, Borg and Nadal are the greatest of all time and there is a huge distance to the next.

Mechlan
05-04-2009, 05:54 PM
How about other "objective" comparisons? :shrug: Monte Carlo and Rome titles won, winning percentage on clay, winning streaks on clay etc...

The best kind of argument one can make. The easiest one to compare, anyway. Now one side argues that their numbers mean more than the other side. ;)

For me, Borg's 6 titles at RG trump Rafa's 4. If you want to make the argument that Rafa is better based on number of Roma and MC titles or overall win percentage, go ahead. For me, if you try and take as much subjectivity out as possible and compare purely on accomplishments, Borg still has the edge. But this is an unfair comparison anyway until Rafa retires.

And that said, subjective factors always come into the decision. If Borg and Nadal played in the same era and each had half the number of titles, would we rate either one of them as the best ever compared to someone that dominated their field with no peers on the surface?

Action Jackson
05-04-2009, 05:54 PM
Too bad public hangings have been outlawed, that would be the minimal offence for suggesting Fed is #2.

CyBorg
05-04-2009, 05:56 PM
Panatta was 32 when he lost his last match to Borg, and still took a set.
We either take age and peak under consideration, or we don't. You started with the age and peak thing to justify some Borg losses to Panatta, same can be done with some of his wins.

Ummm... This is still incoherent. Yes, Borg did beat some old guys in his time. What's your point? All I'm saying is that one of Borg's losses to Panatta was in his first full year on the tour when he was 16, which is not representative of his overall excellence on the surface.

What does a win over Panatta of 32 have to do with anything?

In the end, there were a couple guys that were a danger for him in clay (Also was 3-3 on clay with Nastase), while Nadal has none so far. And Panatta defeated Borg in RG QF when Borg was nearly 20 and the defending champion.

Panatta was a better clay court player than anyone is currently on tour, save for Nadal. Borg also did not have one of his best years on clay in 1976 in general. This is fairly evident.

Borg was a monster and the best at RG ever, just not as dominant overall in clay as Nadal is now...

Plenty would disagree with you about this. You are entitled to your opinion, but I think you're just being stubborn and bull-headed. In his peak years (1977-1981) Borg simply didn't lose on clay. A guy who won two RGs without losing a set is every bit as dominant as Nadal and is arguably more dominant.

You don't have to like this or even accept this, but the fact remains regardless of your particular "spin" on things.

marcRD
05-04-2009, 05:57 PM
another ridiculous thread. isnt the answer a little too obvious?

its Borg. period. he is the 2nd best ever. in a clay world, there are just 6-7 players that can be considered immortal:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Muster
4. Vilas
5. Laver
6. Kuerten
7. Lendl

Whats up with all the Muster love?

Muster ahead of Kuerten, Wilander and Lendl in alot of lists with his 1 Roland Garros final?

How about I make GOAT lists with Connors as nr1 because he won 107 tournaments?

CyBorg
05-04-2009, 06:00 PM
I would definitely add Rosewall, Segura and Cochet into the conversation. Also not to be forgotten are Nusslein, Von Cramm and Laver. All excellent players on clay.

rafa_maniac
05-04-2009, 06:02 PM
For me, Borg's 6 titles at RG trump Rafa's 4. If you want to make the argument that Rafa is better based on number of Roma and MC titles or overall win percentage, go ahead.

Nope, for the moment I agree. :hug: However if Nadal wins RG again this year (and would anyone bet against it?) I will probably argue the point. 5 straight RG titles is something Borg never achieved, and only one short of Borg's 6, and as I think Nadal has more impressive stats elsewhere, I'd probably take him. I don't think this debate will ever be resolved though (is any tennis debate? :lol:), if Nadal matches or beats Borg's 6 RG mark, people will simply drag out the "if Borg didn't retire" or "weak era" arguments.

Action Jackson
05-04-2009, 06:10 PM
Considering Borg only played Monte Carlo during most of his dominant years. It wasn't compulsory to play in Hamburg or in Rome, and he didn't do it that often.

Panatta, Vilas and Lendl are better on clay than anyone that Nadal has to compete against, not that Nadal would be an underdog against them.

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 06:13 PM
Panatta was a better clay court player than anyone is currently on tour, save for Nadal. Borg also did not have one of his best years on clay in 1976 in general. This is fairly evident.

This is mainly due to the fact that he was focusing on grass and preparing himself for his first successful assault on Wimbledon.

CyBorg
05-04-2009, 06:15 PM
This is mainly due to the fact that he was focusing on grass and preparing himself for his first successful assault on Wimbledon.

It doesn't really matter. Players have poor years and develop differently. Nadal's are just camouflaged by the fact that he didn't play Roland Garros in 2003 and 2004.

CyBorg
05-04-2009, 06:16 PM
Considering Borg only played Monte Carlo during most of his dominant years. It wasn't compulsory to play in Hamburg or in Rome, and he didn't do it that often.

Panatta, Vilas and Lendl are better on clay than anyone that Nadal has to compete against, not that Nadal would be an underdog against them.

Rome was declining in popularity somewhat in Borg's time. After playing there and winning in 1978 (which involved the coin throwing crowd), Borg never returned.

marcRD
05-04-2009, 06:18 PM
Considering Borg only played Monte Carlo during most of his dominant years. It wasn't compulsory to play in Hamburg or in Rome, and he didn't do it that often.

Panatta, Vilas and Lendl are better on clay than anyone that Nadal has to compete against, not that Nadal would be an underdog against them.

Simply saying that Panatta is greater than Federer or Djokovic on clay doesnt make it true, neither do I belive anyone can watch a tape of tennis from the 70s and see how players with their wooden raquets and slow play compare to players today playing at a much, much faster tempo.

CyBorg
05-04-2009, 06:21 PM
Nope, for the moment I agree. :hug: However if Nadal wins RG again this year (and would anyone bet against it?) I will probably argue the point. 5 straight RG titles is something Borg never achieved, and only one short of Borg's 6, and as I think Nadal has more impressive stats elsewhere, I'd probably take him. I don't think this debate will ever be resolved though (is any tennis debate? :lol:), if Nadal matches or beats Borg's 6 RG mark, people will simply drag out the "if Borg didn't retire" or "weak era" arguments.

As I look at it, Nadal looks poised to complete a fifth year of dominance on clay, which would tie him with Borg, who also had five dominant years (1977-81) on the surface (in 1977, he did not play RG due to WTT commitments).

Borg however also had productive years on clay from 1974-76, so Nadal would still have some work to do in order to become the most accomplished player on the surface.

But as far as "best" is concerned, this will come down to preference.

CyBorg
05-04-2009, 06:22 PM
Simply saying that Panatta is greater than Federer or Djokovic on clay doesnt make it true, neither do I belive anyone can watch a tape of tennis from the 70s and see how players with their wooden raquets and slow play compare to players today playing at a much, much faster tempo.

You're right. Evgeni Korolev is much better than Panatta. I mean he hits so much bigger!

You earn high marks.

Action Jackson
05-04-2009, 06:26 PM
You're right. Evgeni Korolev is much better than Panatta. I mean he hits so much bigger!

You earn high marks.

Jordi Arrese would beat Borg now on clay. Volandri would beat Muster. Considering with less technology, there needed to be more strategic ways of getting wins.

Then again it's silly to think champions would be champs in any era.

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 06:26 PM
It doesn't really matter. Players have poor years and develop differently. Nadal's are just camouflaged by the fact that he didn't play Roland Garros in 2003 and 2004.

Well, it does matter. If he'd prepared for RG like the two previous years, he probably wouldn't have lost to Panatta. Then again, he might not have won that Wimbledon, or would have lost some sets...

CyBorg
05-04-2009, 06:28 PM
Well, it does matter. If he'd prepared for RG like the two previous years, he probably wouldn't have lost to Panatta. Then again, he might not have won that Wimbledon, or would have lost some sets...

It doesn't matter. What happened happened. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

marcRD
05-04-2009, 06:29 PM
You're right. Evgeni Korolev is much better than Panatta. I mean he hits so much bigger!

You earn high marks.

Sarcasm is a good way to not answer the questions asked. I ask on what criteria Panatta is greater on clay than Djokovic or Federer and you come with this?

CyBorg
05-04-2009, 06:31 PM
Jordi Arrese would beat Borg now on clay. Volandri would beat Muster. Considering with less technology, there needed to be more strategic ways of getting wins.

Then again it's silly to think champions would be champs in any era.

Champions are champions because they have it up there (*points to head*).

I watch a guy like Korolev or even most of the guys toiling in the 100s and 200s and I don't see any particular physical problematics. They're all super-skilled.

Most of them just don't have the smarts, nor the fight to make it. This is still true today.

Watching fat Marcos Baghdatis make it to the finals of the Australian Open made it sufficiently clear to me that this supposed superiority of contemporary athletes is nothing but corporate smoke and mirrors.

CyBorg
05-04-2009, 06:32 PM
Sarcasm is a good way to not answer the questions asked. I ask on what criteria Panatta is greater on clay than Djokovic or Federer and you come with this?

I was responding to the second part of your post, not the first.

rafa_maniac
05-04-2009, 06:39 PM
Borg however also had productive years on clay from 1974-76, so Nadal would still have some work to do in order to become the most accomplished player on the surface.


I think you'll find even this ultimately comes down to preference/bias depending what weighting you give to various accomplishments. ;)

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 06:43 PM
It doesn't matter. What happened happened. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

I am also completely against the "ifs" and "buts" when they are used as reasons to support a statement. But they are still reasons. Anyway, I think we have a funny way of agreeing on things but somehow managing to argue about them. :cool:

marcRD
05-04-2009, 06:47 PM
I was responding to the second part of your post, not the first.

Well, if you go and read it again I wasnt saying they were playing at a different tempo because they were lesser players than the ones out there today, I was simply mentioning the fact that players played a different game back then and I highly doubt you can compare Panatta to Djokovic or Federer simply by watching how they played in their respective eras.

If your making a case for Panatta defeating Borg while Federer and Djokovic cant beat Nadal it could be because:

1.Pannata is greater on clay than Federer/Djokovic
2.Nadal is greater than Borg because he could dominate everyone in his generation
3.Pannata is simply a good matchup against Borg, while no one in this era match up good against Nadal.

You could make a case for Pannatta winning RG while Federer hasnt, but you could also make a case for Federer overall having greater results on clay than Pannatta (afterall no one ranks Courier ahead of Muster because he won RG twice while Muster only got one trophy).

However, AJ was clearly not talking about acomplishments on the surface but that Pannata simply was a better opponent than anyone Nadal had to face in his era, now that is simply a hypothesis difficult to understand, because only the subjective opinion of AJ is used and I have doubts even that can be counted as I can hardly imagine how you can watch someone play with a wooden raquet and compare him with the players who play with modern raquets today. Different spins, tempo and acuracy are some of the things which makes it impossible to compare players with such different equipments.

So, in the end the statement counts for nothing, not even as the subjective opinion of someone who knows quite alot about tennis. Ofcourse it is driven by the will to find arguments for Borgs greatness against Nadals greatness, it is something taken out of the blue, somekind of wishful thinking. If players like Pannata would be around today, Nadal would have to sweat to get his RG trophys. If Nadal lived in another era he would possibly not be greater than Borg and so on.

CyBorg
05-04-2009, 07:03 PM
I think you'll find even this ultimately comes down to preference/bias depending what weighting you give to various accomplishments. ;)

Just think it through next time and you'll be fine.

CyBorg
05-04-2009, 07:04 PM
Well, if you go and read it again I wasnt saying they were playing at a different tempo because they were lesser players than the ones out there today, I was simply mentioning the fact that players played a different game back then and I highly doubt you can compare Panatta to Djokovic or Federer simply by watching how they played in their respective eras.

If your making a case for Panatta defeating Borg while Federer and Djokovic cant beat Nadal it could be because:

1.Pannata is greater on clay than Federer/Djokovic
2.Nadal is greater than Borg because he could dominate everyone in his generation
3.Pannata is simply a good matchup against Borg, while no one in this era match up good against Nadal.

You could make a case for Pannatta winning RG while Federer hasnt, but you could also make a case for Federer overall having greater results on clay than Pannatta (afterall no one ranks Courier ahead of Muster because he won RG twice while Muster only got one trophy).

However, AJ was clearly not talking about acomplishments on the surface but that Pannata simply was a better opponent than anyone Nadal had to face in his era, now that is simply a hypothesis difficult to understand, because only the subjective opinion of AJ is used and I have doubts even that can be counted as I can hardly imagine how you can watch someone play with a wooden raquet and compare him with the players who play with modern raquets today. Different spins, tempo and acuracy are some of the things which makes it impossible to compare players with such different equipments.

So, in the end the statement counts for nothing, not even as the subjective opinion of someone who knows quite alot about tennis. Ofcourse it is driven by the will to find arguments for Borgs greatness against Nadals greatness, it is something taken out of the blue, somekind of wishful thinking. If players like Pannata would be around today, Nadal would have to sweat to get his RG trophys. If Nadal lived in another era he would possibly not be greater than Borg and so on.

I'm not getting into these semantics. Panatta was a tough player, but he wouldn't have beaten a prime Borg.

Similarly I acknowledge that the only reason Nadal lost to Federer in Hamburg was because he was having an off-day. Visibly.

marcRD
05-04-2009, 07:31 PM
I'm not getting into these semantics. Panatta was a tough player, but he wouldn't have beaten a prime Borg.

Similarly I acknowledge that the only reason Nadal lost to Federer in Hamburg was because he was having an off-day. Visibly.


I agree with you completely on the Nadal defeat in Hamburg, Nadal was tired and it shouldnt be counted. Rome 2006 on the other hand could have gone to history and I dont think Federer choked away that match like Coria did a year earlier, he simply lost a very tight last set against Nadal.

The Panatta-Borg story is more complicated Panatta did defeat him before in RG and did cause him trouble in other tournaments like Monte carlo, MAdrid and Rome. I dont think Borg would have lost against Panatta in his prime, fact still is that Panatta was more trouble for Borg than any opponent Nadal has to face on clay anywhere.

Some other players that AJ mentioned like Vilas was just beyond the term bitch, turkey or anything else against Borg on clay. Everytime they faced each other it was only a matter of how many bagels there would be in the match, I cant imagine what MTF would be like everytime they would face each other on clay.

Still Vilas somehow is a legend on clay, probably deservedly so. Vilas was afterall simply unfortunate to play in the era of a giant. It is all about matchups, Panatta wasnt as great as Vilas on clay, but he wasnt a good matchup for Borg. Such a matchup is missing in the Nadal era, but that could be because Nadal has an answer for anything you throw at him, I cant even imagine how a good matchup against Nadal would be like on clay.

Action Jackson
05-04-2009, 07:49 PM
I'm not getting into these semantics. Panatta was a tough player, but he wouldn't have beaten a prime Borg.

Similarly I acknowledge that the only reason Nadal lost to Federer in Hamburg was because he was having an off-day. Visibly.

Well it's not like Federer has got close to Nadal at the big one. I mean this is the thing with certain numbers and just reading them without analysing them closely.

Too bad Guga never got to play Nadal, but then again we'll hear the usual shit. Nadal is the only person to have hit topspin, but hey it's not like the strings haven't evolved, how would Guga handle the spin, well he didn't like the low balls.

It's obvious that Panatta always lifted when he played Borg.

BlackSilver
05-04-2009, 08:19 PM
Nadal will win 8-9 RGs, mark my word.

Don't worry, I will and I would like to know if you truthfully believes in that, at the point that you would bet your permanence in this forum based on that possibility, like a countryman of yours (likely yourself) did some years ago.

marcRD
05-04-2009, 08:42 PM
Don't worry, I will and I would like to know if you truthfully believes in that, at the point that you would bet your permanence in this forum based on that possibility, like a countryman of yours (likely yourself) did some years ago.

No and I wouldnt throw myself from a building if that doesnt happen. Thank you. But mark my words and come back 5 years from now..

Xavier7
05-04-2009, 09:18 PM
Generally the level of competition in sports gets tougher and tougher.
Borg was a great player but if he came up against peak Nadal, Federer or Djokovic at Roland Garros he would have stood no chance.
Thats my opinion anyway.
I would say:
1 Nadal
2 Federer
3 Kuerten

rocketassist
05-04-2009, 09:21 PM
Anyone who thinks Fedclown and Fakervic are the second best claycourters ever needs putting in an electric chair and the voltage turned up.

Bazooka
05-04-2009, 09:22 PM
Ummm... This is still incoherent. Yes, Borg did beat some old guys in his time. What's your point? All I'm saying is that one of Borg's losses to Panatta was in his first full year on the tour when he was 16, which is not representative of his overall excellence on the surface.

What does a win over Panatta of 32 have to do with anything?


Nothing, just the same that his loss being at 16 has to do with anything. There are guys with decent HtH against him in clay, at least two, plus Vilas which he dominated but got some wins off him too. Nobody defeats Nadal in clay. You mentioned that it was in part explained by Borg being 16 in some of those 5 losses in clay, I am telling you that some if his wins were not representative on Panatta's excellence on the surface.


Panatta was a better clay court player than anyone is currently on tour, save for Nadal.


You are very quick evaluating the clay performance of guys like Federer that has lost in clay (almost) only to Nadal in 4 years, and Djokovic, which can only be stopped only by Nadal in clay in the last two seasons. I know these two are not specialists like Panatta or Vilas, but overall their game is so good that is pretty effective in clay, to the point that it takes a Nadal to defeat them. Federer also owned specialists like Coria and Gaudio, 8-0 in clay against them.



Plenty would disagree with you about this. You are entitled to your opinion, but I think you're just being stubborn and bull-headed. In his peak years (1977-1981) Borg simply didn't lose on clay. A guy who won two RGs without losing a set is every bit as dominant as Nadal and is arguably more dominant.

You don't have to like this or even accept this, but the fact remains regardless of your particular "spin" on things.

Borg lost two matches in that five year span, not counting two retirements. He lost to Pecci in Montecarlo 1981 and to Vilas in Germany in 1980. The fact remains regardless of your particular "spin" on things.

Xavier7
05-04-2009, 09:26 PM
Anyone who thinks Fedclown and Fakervic are the second best claycourters ever needs putting in an electric chair and the voltage turned up.

Federer is probably second best of all time.
If he weren't playing at the same time as Nadal he'd probably have 4 French Open titles and 15 Masters series on clay.

BlackSilver
05-04-2009, 09:28 PM
No and I wouldnt throw myself from a building if that doesnt happen. Thank you. But mark my words and come back 5 years from now..

Why not? If you REALLY believes in that, there is no reason for not accepting the deal.....Or there is?

BlackSilver
05-04-2009, 09:33 PM
Federer also owned specialists like Coria and Gaudio, 8-0 in clay against them.

These particular h2h doesn't mean that much.

BlackSilver
05-04-2009, 09:39 PM
Generally the level of competition in sports gets tougher and tougher.
Borg was a great player but if he came up against peak Nadal, Federer or Djokovic at Roland Garros he would have stood no chance.
Thats my opinion anyway.
I would say:
1 Nadal
2 Federer
3 Kuerten

Federer is probably second best of all time.
If he weren't playing at the same time as Nadal he'd probably have 4 French Open titles and 15 Masters series on clay.

Your posts are bad.

Har-Tru
05-04-2009, 09:40 PM
Federer is probably second best of all time.
If he weren't playing at the same time as Nadal he'd probably have 4 French Open titles and 15 Masters series on clay.

:retard::banghead:

FedFan_2007
05-04-2009, 09:51 PM
Nadal
Space
Space
Space
Borg
Space
Space
Muster

FedFan_2007
05-04-2009, 09:51 PM
:retard::banghead:

:banghead:

marcRD
05-04-2009, 11:02 PM
Why not? If you REALLY believes in that, there is no reason for not accepting the deal.....Or there is?

I am not the religous kind of person so I dont have that much faith on anyone. I would love to be wrong on Nadal, because quite frankly I think it is boring to see someone dominate any surface like this and I am not particulary fond of Nadal, his game has quietly grown into my skin but I find myself rooting against every opponent he faces on clay.

I find people making all kind of crazy predictions, like that Federer wont ever win another grand slam or that Nadal will win the golden slam this year. I dont see anything extreme or uncertain in my prediction of 8 or more Roland Garros for Nadal, but even if it is 1% that I am wrong I dont see any reason to bet on something where I have absolutely nothing to win. It is stupid, if you make Glenn give his word to abandon these forums if Nadal indeed wins 8 RGs before lets say 2013 I will gladly participate in the contest. But I wont bet if there is no victory, no reward only punishment for beeing wrong.

Xavier7
05-04-2009, 11:20 PM
Your posts are bad.

OK. Thats probably going a bit far.
3 French Open and 10 Clay Masters Series is realistic.

marcRD
05-04-2009, 11:26 PM
These particular h2h doesn't mean that much.

You think it is easy to get to 10 clay finals in master series and 3 RG finals even if the opponents would indeed be avarage on clay (which I dont belive at all). You think Muster, Corretja, Bruguera could beat bad/avarage/quite good/great (however you want to define the current generation on clay) players on clay week in and week out like Federer did 2005-2008?

You dont think Muster, Bruguera and company could lose to lets say Davydenko, Ferrer, Djokovic, Ferrero in decline, Monaco, Almagro, Verdasco, Stepanek, Monfils and the whole list of players who Federer has been beating on a weekly basis on clay?

These mythological clay specialists lost to players on clay that were absolutely subpar on clay, who could not even slide or hit a drop shot or stay in a rally for more than 10 shots.

Stepanek is probably the worst player Federer has lost to for over 5 years on clay. Muster lost to guys like Santoro, Rafter and Krajicek during his prime on clay.

Bruguera lost to Krajicek, Ivanisevic and Sampras during his prime on clay. He lost to a really old Lendl in RG 92 by 4-6 2-6 1-6, one year before his double RG achievment. I saw Costa lose to fucking Julien Boutter the year before he won the whole roland garros by somekind of miracle and become one of those clay legends who should be around to push Nadal around.

I havent even mentioned the unknown guys like Horst, Paloheimo and Haarhuis who beat the clay legends in important clay tournaments.

Do you remember Verkerk pushing Coria around in straight sets just some years ago? Those kind of things happened regularly during the golden days of clay tennis. Can you see Federer or Djokovic let a Verkerk even get a set against them on clay?

Xavier7
05-04-2009, 11:31 PM
Why the obsession with Muster in this thread?
Just looking at his stats and His French Open record isn't that impressive overall.
1 Win, 1 SF and 1 QF.
11 other French Opens he played in he did not make the QF.
That record is not better than Federer who has reached 3 French Open finals only losing to Nadal.
Jim Courier was pretty amazing on clay in the early 90s so what about him.

marcRD
05-04-2009, 11:34 PM
Why the obsession with Muster in this thread?
Just looking at his stats and His French Open record isn't that impressive overall.
1 Win, 1 SF and 1 QF.
11 other French Opens he played in he did not make the QF.
That record is not better than Federer who has reached 3 French Open finals only losing to Nadal.
Jim Courier was pretty amazing on clay in the early 90s so what about him.

Any list with Muster ahead of Courier on clay is a joke (that is all lists I have read so far), Courier absolutely owned Muster on clay and won 7 straight matches against him during their peak between 92-97. Courier where constantly in SFs, Fs and so on in RG while Muster was losing to claymugs like Rafter and Becker.

Agassi was also greater than Muster with his 3 RG finals, I dont know why the greatness on clay should be measured by number of mickey mouse tournaments won?

Agassi RG resume: 1 victory, 2 runner up, 2 sf, 3 qf.
Muster RG resume: 1 victory, 1 SF, 1 QF

Muster won 6 clay master series, while Agassi rarely ever played them and when he played them almost always lost in the 1st round. Look at his golden runs in RG and results in the clay tournaments before RG:

RG final 90, only warmed up with Hamburg and lost in the 2nd round against Gustafsson.
RG final 91, only played Rome and Monte Carlo and lost in the 1st round in both tournaments.
RG victory 99, played only Rome and lost to Rafter in the 3rd round.

Still Agassi went further than Muster year after year in Roland Garros, I cant understand how Muster can be greater than Agassi with so much lesser results in the grand slam.

luie
05-04-2009, 11:40 PM
Why the obsession with Muster in this thread?
Just looking at his stats and His French Open record isn't that impressive overall.
1 Win, 1 SF and 1 QF.
11 other French Opens he played in he did not make the QF.
That record is not better than Federer who has reached 3 French Open finals only losing to Nadal.
Jim Courier was pretty amazing on clay in the early 90s so what about him.
People like a good story and athelete comes back from near career ending injuries & conquers.Well its why I like muster anyway.:)

marcRD
05-04-2009, 11:55 PM
So, Muster won 3 Monte Carlos and 3 Rome titles. Top players who used to beat him in RG never cared, americans rarely even played. You have a bunch of hungry spaniards while the top dogs are resting after the hardcourt season, Muster could battle down those "clay specialists" then comes RG and he would have to play Courier, Sampras and all the other top players afterall and he would lose against them, because they simply were greater players even on his beloved clay surface. He would then go on to play all kind of mickey mouse tournaments none of the top players cared about and build his reputation as "clay legend" and breaking all kind of streak records beating every "specialist" on his way. Time goes bu and he becomes a beautiful memory among tennis fans and they start to remember all the good moments with Muster and they start to think what he could do about this Nadal guy who has no one to challenge him, clearly the legend Muster would be able to do better than these mugs Federer and Djokovic, right?

rocketassist
05-05-2009, 12:11 AM
So, Muster won 3 Monte Carlos and 3 Rome titles. Top players who used to beat him in RG never cared, americans rarely even played. You have a bunch of hungry spaniards while the top dogs are resting after the hardcourt season, Muster could battle down those "clay specialists" then comes RG and he would have to play Courier, Sampras and all the other top players afterall and he would lose against them, because they simply were greater players even on his beloved clay surface. He would then go on to play all kind of mickey mouse tournaments none of the top players cared about and build his reputation as "clay legend" and breaking all kind of streak records beating every "specialist" on his way. Time goes bu and he becomes a beautiful memory among tennis fans and they start to remember all the good moments with Muster and they start to think what he could do about this Nadal guy who has no one to challenge him, clearly the legend Muster would be able to do better than these mugs Federer and Djokovic, right?

Djokovic is no clay great whatsoever. A couple of RG semis in a weak, crappy era and he's better than Muster? :haha:

Put him in the 90s and watch him get ground into the dirt.

As for Sampras better on clay than Muster :haha: I agree Federer could beat 90s players on clay, but it doesn't make him the no 2 clay courter of all time does it?

Guga would roast him.

rocketassist
05-05-2009, 12:15 AM
You think it is easy to get to 10 clay finals in master series and 3 RG finals even if the opponents would indeed be avarage on clay (which I dont belive at all). You think Muster, Corretja, Bruguera could beat bad/avarage/quite good/great (however you want to define the current generation on clay) players on clay week in and week out like Federer did 2005-2008?

You dont think Muster, Bruguera and company could lose to lets say Davydenko, Ferrer, Djokovic, Ferrero in decline, Monaco, Almagro, Verdasco, Stepanek, Monfils and the whole list of players who Federer has been beating on a weekly basis on clay?

These mythological clay specialists lost to players on clay that were absolutely subpar on clay, who could not even slide or hit a drop shot or stay in a rally for more than 10 shots.

Stepanek is probably the worst player Federer has lost to for over 5 years on clay. Muster lost to guys like Santoro, Rafter and Krajicek during his prime on clay.

Bruguera lost to Krajicek, Ivanisevic and Sampras during his prime on clay. He lost to a really old Lendl in RG 92 by 4-6 2-6 1-6, one year before his double RG achievment. I saw Costa lose to fucking Julien Boutter the year before he won the whole roland garros by somekind of miracle and become one of those clay legends who should be around to push Nadal around.

I havent even mentioned the unknown guys like Horst, Paloheimo and Haarhuis who beat the clay legends in important clay tournaments.

Do you remember Verkerk pushing Coria around in straight sets just some years ago? Those kind of things happened regularly during the golden days of clay tennis. Can you see Federer or Djokovic let a Verkerk even get a set against them on clay?

Davydenko and Ferrer are good clay courters but not as some of the others earlier in the decade and in the 90s. As for Monaco and Verdasco being great :haha:

marcRD
05-05-2009, 12:19 AM
Djokovic is no clay great whatsoever. A couple of RG semis in a weak, crappy era and he's better than Muster? :haha:

Put him in the 90s and watch him get ground into the dirt.

As for Sampras better on clay than Muster :haha: I agree Federer could beat 90s players on clay, but it doesn't make him the no 2 clay courter of all time does it?

Guga would roast him.

I never said Federer was the nr 2 claycourter of all time, are you crazy?

I would put him at the end of my top 10 list in the open era maybe.

Djokovic is getting really good on this surface, give him some time and he will get to some finals in RG and maybe win if Nadal is no longer there. I didnt say Sampras was better than Muster on clay, I said Courier and Agassi was better than Muster. However Sampras could beat Muster anytime and anywhere if he felt motivated.

marcRD
05-05-2009, 12:22 AM
Davydenko and Ferrer are good clay courters but not as some of the others earlier in the decade and in the 90s. As for Monaco and Verdasco being great :haha:

Well, I did mix in avarage, good, great claycourters at the top of my head who Federer has been defeating week in and week out for 4 years. I could just aswell change Verdasco and Monaco with lets say Nalbandian and Wawrinka. Good players on a claycourt, good enought to stand a chanse against any of the 90s claycourters.

krakenzero
05-05-2009, 12:25 AM
Hope this helps:

FO
1. Borg, 6
2. Nadal, 4
3. Kuerten, Lendl, Wilander, 3
6. Bruguera, Courier 2

Rome
1. Nadal, 4
2. Muster, 3
3. Courier, Lendl, Gomez, Borg, Virulaitis 2

Montecarlo
1. Nadal, 5
2. Muster, Nastase, Borg, 3
5. Vilas, Wilander, Bruguera, Lendl, Ferrero, Kuerten 2

Happy now?

thrust
05-05-2009, 12:48 AM
another ridiculous thread. isnt the answer a little too obvious?

its Borg. period. he is the 2nd best ever. in a clay world, there are just 6-7 players that can be considered immortal:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Muster
4. Vilas
5. Laver
6. Kuerten
7. Lendl

Rosewall was a better clay court player than Laver. Besides his 2 FO Slams, he won the French Pro Slam 4 times on clay. His other 4 were on a fast indoor surface. Courier was better than Muster and Vilas. Muster and Vilas played many more clay tournaments than most other top players, that is why they have so many victories on clay. The French Open is the ultimate test of a great clay courter. Lendl has 3 FO wins, Wilander has 3, Laver-2, Courier- 2, Manuel Santana- 2. Vilas and Muster have one each.

marcRD
05-05-2009, 12:49 AM
Hope this helps:

FO
1. Borg, 6
2. Nadal, 4
3. Kuerten, Lendl, Wilander, 3
6. Bruguera, Courier 2

Rome
1. Nadal, 4
2. Muster, 3
3. Courier, Lendl, Gomez, Borg, Virulaitis 2

Montecarlo
1. Nadal, 5
2. Muster, Nastase, Borg, 3
5. Vilas, Wilander, Bruguera, Lendl, Ferrero, Kuerten 2

Happy now?

This list doesnt tell anything at all. You dont include results in Miami and Indian Wells to compare the greatest hardcourt players of all time, it is just a bonus on the achievments in the grand slams.

Rome and Monte Carlo is specialy doubtful to compare quality as the great players often ignored these tournaments.

CyBorg
05-05-2009, 04:40 AM
Nothing, just the same that his loss being at 16 has to do with anything. There are guys with decent HtH against him in clay, at least two, plus Vilas which he dominated but got some wins off him too. Nobody defeats Nadal in clay. You mentioned that it was in part explained by Borg being 16 in some of those 5 losses in clay, I am telling you that some if his wins were not representative on Panatta's excellence on the surface.

So what if they weren't? This is debatable. Dragging in a loss by Borg at 16 is like mentioning a Nadal loss at 16. It's wasting everyone's time.

You are very quick evaluating the clay performance of guys like Federer that has lost in clay (almost) only to Nadal in 4 years, and Djokovic, which can only be stopped only by Nadal in clay in the last two seasons. I know these two are not specialists like Panatta or Vilas, but overall their game is so good that is pretty effective in clay, to the point that it takes a Nadal to defeat them. Federer also owned specialists like Coria and Gaudio, 8-0 in clay against them.

If the only specialists you can think of are Coria and Gaudio then I can't help your non-argument.

Borg lost two matches in that five year span, not counting two retirements. He lost to Pecci in Montecarlo 1981 and to Vilas in Germany in 1980. The fact remains regardless of your particular "spin" on things.

Yes, I know. Nadal lost his share too.

CyBorg
05-05-2009, 04:43 AM
Well it's not like Federer has got close to Nadal at the big one. I mean this is the thing with certain numbers and just reading them without analysing them closely.

Too bad Guga never got to play Nadal, but then again we'll hear the usual shit. Nadal is the only person to have hit topspin, but hey it's not like the strings haven't evolved, how would Guga handle the spin, well he didn't like the low balls.

It's obvious that Panatta always lifted when he played Borg.

Panatta at least took prime Borg to five sets in Rome. Watching Djokovic catching his breath in set number two against Nadal just makes me laugh. He doesn't have to beat Nadal to prove himself - but can he at least not run out of gas after exchanging groundstrokes for an hour?

Sad and pathetic. And so is Federer's backhand.

krakenzero
05-05-2009, 04:49 AM
This list doesnt tell anything at all. You dont include results in Miami and Indian Wells to compare the greatest hardcourt players of all time, it is just a bonus on the achievments in the grand slams.

Rome and Monte Carlo is specialy doubtful to compare quality as the great players often ignored these tournaments.

So I guess you're not happy:rolleyes:... let me get your point: if I have a list of GS achievements, and then include a couple of TMS achievements, then the list says nothing? I'd include IW and Miami results in a "hardcourt" comparation if it would be neccesary, obviously, AFTER considering the Oz, the Uso, and probably the Masters Cup.

Easy index: let's see the results in FO. If there's still any doubt (not in my case), let's check some other results in important clay tournaments. That's it.

Action Jackson
05-05-2009, 06:03 AM
Panatta at least took prime Borg to five sets in Rome. Watching Djokovic catching his breath in set number two against Nadal just makes me laugh. He doesn't have to beat Nadal to prove himself - but can he at least not run out of gas after exchanging groundstrokes for an hour?

Sad and pathetic. And so is Federer's backhand.

Djokovic can do it for a while, but that's it.

Some of the stuff in here is really hilarious. If someone doesn't have the nous or the understanding that clay was Verkerk's best surface and this from the horses mouth and also after that RG final he went to play league tennis on clay and not to the grass event next of all.

As for Federer, well he couldn't beat Guga who was well past it in 2004, also Albert Costa and Mantilla, he struggled big time. Who plays that style of tennis with the increased power of the last 2, the man Nadal. Who else plays like that on clay these days? No one, not hard to see how these are inter related.

The top attacking players could win matches on clay, when there was sufficient difference in surface speeds, the contrast in styles can work both ways.

Next, we have the whole RG thing. Agassi has a better RG record than Muster. Gaudio won RG, but Corretja didn't, but no way in hell I am going to rate Gaudio higher than Corretja on a clay court.

Frank Winkler
05-05-2009, 06:08 AM
Sampras could not beat any decend player on clay.

That is why I have trouble with Sampras being one of the all time greats.
no other great player was that bad on one surface.
The others were all competitive on all sufaces.
Borg
Mcenroe
lendl
Federer
Nadal
sampras because he won so many
but he was so poor on clay.
This shows how much he just depended on power tennis and his surface.
The most one sided great of the above.

kingfederer
05-05-2009, 07:04 AM
Clay
Nadal Borg
French Open Titles (Consecutive) 4 (4 Consecutive) 6 (4 Consecutive)

French Open W-L (%) 28-0 (100%) 49-2 (96%)

Monte Carlo Titles (Consecutive) 5 (5 Consecutive) 3 (2 Consecutive)

Barcelona Titles (Consecutive) 5 (5 Consecutive) 2

Rome Titles Consecutive) 4 (3 Consecutive) 2

Hamburg Titles (Consecutive) 1 -

Career Titles 25 30

Finals Record W-L (%) 25-1 (96%) 30-6 (83%)

Best Winning Streak 81 46

5-Set Record 45-0 (100%) ??

Most Bagel (6-0) Sets Won ?? ??

Career Winning W-L (%) 173-14 (93%) 245-39 (86%)


Blue Text are the ones in which that player is the best in that particular category compared with everyone else of all time!
All stats are based on clay surface only!

heya
05-05-2009, 07:37 AM
Federer was called the favorite on clay in 2002.
He was fawned over and declared the GOAT since 2004 by the delusional fans and media.

Laughable idiocy.

This is what delusional Roddick just said about Federer: "he is the best player ever..." http://twitter.com/andyroddick

heya
05-05-2009, 07:42 AM
Watching Djokovic catching his breath in set number two against Nadal just makes me laugh. He doesn't have to beat Nadal to prove himself - but can he at least not run out of gas after exchanging groundstrokes for an hour?

Sad and pathetic. And so is Federer's backhand.The clowns on tennis forums were downright pissed because Djokovic was beaten twice by Roddick in 2 months.

marcRD
05-05-2009, 11:07 AM
I rank Corretja ahead of Gaudio on clay because

2f 1 sf and 2 qf> 1 fluke win, 0 f, 0 sf, 0 qf

Ofcourse master series must count for something, but if the greatest players ignored the master series when Muster was winning Rome and Monte Carlo I really dont hold the achievment high enough to make up his lackluster performances in RG.

Agassi and Courier are greater than Muster anyway you look at it, specialy Courier who dominated RG in Musters prime.

marcRD
05-05-2009, 11:15 AM
Sampras could not beat any decend player on clay.



How about Muster, Bruguera, Costa, Kafelnikov, Courier, Corretja, Agassi?

aferlo
05-05-2009, 11:38 AM
That means that he has acomplished less than Borg, not that he is second to Borg on clay. If Nadal would die tomorrow he would be remembered as the greatest of all time, this kind of domination on any surface has never been seen in the history of the sport.
Are we forgetting the dominance of Federer in grass during so many years? After 5 years he was beatten by Nadal in probabbly the best match ever.

Merton
05-05-2009, 12:06 PM
Alright, I do rate Borg above Nadal as of now, but come on, he is clearly above anyone else.

It is my own ranking, clearly subjective. I just take into account that Lendl and Wilander ran into each other during the 80s. As I said, a 5th RG title means Nadal moves ahead in my mind.

My point is it was still clay, And the post is not about red clay but about the greatest clay court tennis player. Borg didn't dominate the way Nadal does, he even got defeated twice in RG by Panatta, which had 5-7 in clay with Borg. And in RG Panatta is 2-1 over Borg. Rafa is simply more dominant than Borg was, is this so hard to admit?

Of course Borg did, actually since Borg preceds Nadal, the correct thing is to say Nadal dominates similarly to how Borg did. Just look at peak Borg % on clay and his 5 set record. Borg 1978-1981 is comparable to Nadal 2005-2008.

Nadal's record on RG is a result of not entering in 2003 and 2004. He would not have won the title in either year.

Too bad public hangings have been outlawed, that would be the minimal offence for suggesting Fed is #2.

I was wondering if anybody suggested such a thing seriously until I saw this:

Federer is probably second best of all time.
If he weren't playing at the same time as Nadal he'd probably have 4 French Open titles and 15 Masters series on clay.

:haha: :haha:

Simply saying that Panatta is greater than Federer or Djokovic on clay doesnt make it true, neither do I belive anyone can watch a tape of tennis from the 70s and see how players with their wooden raquets and slow play compare to players today playing at a much, much faster tempo.

Making intertemporal comparisons of this type is completely irrelevant, otherwise you have to conclude that Chucho would be the favourite against Lendl on clay and Volandri would crush Wilander. Obviously any statements must be made in the context of the era we are talking about. I have no doubt that the 2016 FO champ will be a better player than Nadal but is that relevant? No.

Federer is probably second best of all time.
If he weren't playing at the same time as Nadal he'd probably have 4 French Open titles and 15 Masters series on clay.

He would not have dominated in the 90s the way you suggest he would, simply because of matchup issues. His chances of winning at RG would depend on the draw and conditions.

aferlo
05-05-2009, 12:09 PM
Difficult to compare different eras. Borg and Nadal are very similar the way they imposse in clay. Their rivals start their game already beaten (just see the way Gonzalez or Verdasco played in Rome against Rafa) and Nadal, the same that happened with Borg, doesn´t need to play at his best to win rather easily.

On the lists I have read nobody has mentioned Nastase, an excellent player in any surface that won 29 of his 53 career in tittles in clay, winning a lot of marvelous players in that surface (Orantes, Pannatta, Vilas, etc)

marcRD
05-05-2009, 12:40 PM
Making intertemporal comparisons of this type is completely irrelevant, otherwise you have to conclude that Chucho would be the favourite against Lendl on clay and Volandri would crush Wilander. Obviously any statements must be made in the context of the era we are talking about. I have no doubt that the 2016 FO champ will be a better player than Nadal but is that relevant? No.


Once again I was misunderstood. I have not said anything about players in the 70s beeing lesser than players today, I am saying that it is impossible to compare them. Panatta is said to be greater than Federer, this even when Federer has consistantly been getting greater results on clay than Panatta, so it is just an empty statement.