Federer one of best clay-courters ever! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer one of best clay-courters ever!

Ozone
05-17-2009, 04:26 PM
I could have said this before his win today, but Roger is getting dissed about sucking on clay. The thing is, he is DEFINATELY in the top 5 all-time clay court players ever.

Federer has made it to the finals of Roland Garros 4 times!! The thing is Nadal is absolutely a monster on clay and by far the best ever. For Federer to beat him sometimes and consistently do well at RG and even MS clay events, makes him easily one of the best all-time on clay.

marcRD
05-17-2009, 04:32 PM
He is on my top 10 list in the open era, but according to some tennis minds here he got lucky to find himself playing in the Nadal era. If he would have played in the Bruguera and Muster era I guess he would never have won anything.

MariaV
05-17-2009, 04:33 PM
Federer is going to win 10 Roland Garros titles in a row now, the undisputed clay GOAT!! :worship: :bowdown: :D :wavey:

Chiseller
05-17-2009, 04:36 PM
He is on my top 10 list in the open era, but according to some tennis minds here he got lucky to find himself playing in the Nadal era. If he would have played in the Bruguera and Muster era I guess he would never have won anything.

He surely would've achieved less but would've had a bigger shot at FO.

marcRD
05-17-2009, 04:36 PM
Federer is going to win 10 Roland Garros titles in a row now, the undisputed clay GOAT!! :worship: :bowdown: :D :wavey:

My sarcasm is much better than this.

tea
05-17-2009, 04:41 PM
true

Action Jackson
05-17-2009, 04:43 PM
He surely would've achieved less but would've had a bigger shot at FO.

Don't state something that thoughtful.

marcRD
05-17-2009, 04:47 PM
He surely would've achieved less but would've had a bigger shot at FO.

That is just speculation, personaly I cant see anything in the bunch of spaniards and Muster which could threaten Federer, but Kuerten would own him big time. Ferrero in his prime would pretty much be equal to Federer.

Early 90s and mid 90s was an awful time for clay tennis with avarage clay specialists dominating the surface while the great players had no idea how to play on clay (because they were all either americans or serve and volleyers), that is my opinion.

BackhandMissile
05-17-2009, 05:03 PM
I wouldn't specifically say a great clay courter, but rather a great player who had a very good game that worked on all surfaces. Apart from Nadal, most of the guys he faces on clay are playing the same game they would on any other surface, which is usually inferior to his own.

Ozone
05-17-2009, 05:05 PM
Nadal took 4 titles away from him, or Federer would be best ever by far. Fed play Rafa close in some of those too, Rafa is just too good on clay

Renaud
05-17-2009, 05:06 PM
Federer has made it to the finals of Roland Garros 4 times!!

Ah ?

marcRD
05-17-2009, 05:11 PM
I wouldn't specifically say a great clay courter

3 runner ups in RG, 6 AMS runner ups and 5 AMS titles is a great clay courter, there is no way going around those stats. I know why you say he is not a great clay courter, it is because it is his weakest surface but even on clay he is an alltime great, he doesnt lose as much of his game as Sampras or even Agassi did on clay. He probably is comparable to Laver on clay, even if the comparasion is a little farstretched I see similarity in the way both have an allcourt game and manage to be effective with this kind of game even on clay.

habibko
05-17-2009, 05:24 PM
I wouldn't specifically say a great clay courter, but rather a great player who had a very good game that worked on all surfaces. Apart from Nadal, most of the guys he faces on clay are playing the same game they would on any other surface, which is usually inferior to his own.

this.

Federer has such a complete game that he can translate so well on any surface - clay included - and that's why he is one of the most complete players of all time if not THE one.

and yes he is among the all time greats even on clay.

BaselineSmash
05-17-2009, 05:28 PM
DEFINITELY.

His record is very, very good. But for someone so able on the surface, he's had some standout bad losses. Kuerten at RG '04, Mantilla in Rome '03, Nadal at RG '08, and how he managed to win against Nalabandian in RG '06 still puzzles me, Dahveed's injury notwithstanding.

You could look at Sampras' exceptional grasscourt record, only to cite the Corretja loss in Davis Cup on grass to show how even the most supreme surface specialists can come up short. But Pete's pistol was a bit of a dud at that stage.

Action Jackson
05-17-2009, 05:29 PM
I wouldn't specifically say a great clay courter, but rather a great player who had a very good game that worked on all surfaces. Apart from Nadal, most of the guys he faces on clay are playing the same game they would on any other surface, which is usually inferior to his own.

Very solid this analysis.

marcRD
05-17-2009, 05:30 PM
DEFINITELY.

His record is very, very good. But for someone so able on the surface, he's had some standout bad losses. Kuerten at RG '04, Mantilla in Rome '03, Nadal at RG '08, and how he managed to win against Nalabandian in RG '06 still puzzles me, Dahveed's injury notwithstanding.

You could look at Sampras' exceptional grasscourt record, only to cite the Corretja loss in Davis Cup on grass to show how even the most supreme surface specialists can come up short. But Pete's pistol was a bit of a dud at that stage.

Dont forget how he was completely outplayed by bad matchup Krajicek in Wimbledon.

Mantilla in Rome barely counts, Federer was still a headcase back then. He didnt get truly great on clay until 2006.

w78dexon_y
05-17-2009, 05:33 PM
I could have said this before his win today, but Roger is getting dissed about sucking on clay. The thing is, he is DEFINATELY in the top 5 all-time clay court players ever.

How did he do in MC and Rome?

marcRD
05-17-2009, 05:37 PM
The thing is, he is DEFINATELY in the top 5 all-time clay court players ever.


I cant see how you can put him infront of Nadal, Borg, Wilander, Lendl and Kuerten. You could make an argument for nr 6-10 but the top 5 list is just not touchable for Federer at the moment.

Action Jackson
05-17-2009, 05:43 PM
Dont forget how he was completely outplayed by bad matchup Krajicek in Wimbledon.

Mantilla in Rome barely counts, Federer was still a headcase back then. He didnt get truly great on clay until 2006.

You are at it again I see. You are bringing this up with Fed, then go on and say haha Sampras beat Bruguera at RG 1996, when Bruguera was coming back from an ankle ligament injury, which left him short of match conditioning, as he only came back a few tournaments before RG, but not a surprise you forget this.

In other words, you are ignoring one particular circumstance which doesn't favour your tinted view, while using an excuse to justify a loss by Federer. In essence it means both of these guys on the respective days, weren't good enough to win their particular matches.

BaselineSmash
05-17-2009, 05:54 PM
Dont forget how he was completely outplayed by bad matchup Krajicek in Wimbledon.

Mantilla in Rome barely counts, Federer was still a headcase back then. He didnt get truly great on clay until 2006.

Yeah, the Krajicek loss wasn't too hot, but Sampras had maybe over-exerted himself at the FO that year. Not a good excuse for all, but Pete did have anaemia. And don't forget that Pete's coach Gullikson died of brain cancer in May '96, with the Krajicek match in June.

Rome does count. It was a MS final, not a first round, and it was just a month before Roger would win Wimbledon. He was good on clay in 2006, especially Rome, but against Nalbandian he was on the brink of defeat and got lucky.

MariaV
05-17-2009, 05:55 PM
My sarcasm is much better than this.

Why is yours better? :rolleyes:

I don't think this is one of the best threads ever though. :awww:

CyBorg
05-17-2009, 05:59 PM
There are really two things to consider for any player - peak ability and longevity (making adjustments and competing year after year).

Roger's longevity is pretty good. He's a solid competitor from year to year, but his best form on the surface just doesn't seem to cut the mustard to win the big ones. This is why, IMO, he's behind the likes of Bruguera.

Would Roger push the 1993 version of Jim Courier to five sets and win that match? I don't think so. I don't see this kind of fight in Roger - not at Roland Garros.

As for what Roger would do in other eras - we'll never really know. Some folks say he'd be winning French Opens one after another. I think it's also possible he wouldn't be making finals at all.

P.S. Nice to see the bandwagon back. I guess we know who the bandwagon player of the month is.

Action Jackson
05-17-2009, 06:00 PM
Yeah, the Krjicek loss wasn't too hot, but Sampras had maybe over-exerted himself at the FO that year. Not a good excuse for all, but Pete did have anaemia. And don't forget that Pete's coach Gullikson died of brain cancer in May '96, with the Krajicek match in June.


What Sampras did at RG 96 was underrated apart from the match against Draper, he defeated Gustafsson (good matchup), Bruguera, Todd Martin and Courier in 5 sets. The anaemia thing didn't help at all and it was very warm that year in Paris. The ball was flying through the air very quickly. Pete was just fodder for Kafelnikov.

Fed was awful against Horna in 2003 as well.

marcRD
05-17-2009, 06:03 PM
Why is yours better? :rolleyes:

I don't think this is one of the best threads ever though. :awww:

Well having reread what the OP said I think maybe your sarcasm was not out of place. Sorry, I had barely read what had been said from start, to say that Federer is one of the 5 best claycourters of all time is kind of to go on a bandwagon.

marcRD
05-17-2009, 06:06 PM
What Sampras did at RG 96 was underrated apart from the match against Draper, he defeated Gustafsson (good matchup), Bruguera, Todd Martin and Courier in 5 sets. The anaemia thing didn't help at all and it was very warm that year in Paris. The ball was flying through the air very quickly. Pete was just fodder for Kafelnikov.

Fed was awful against Horna in 2003 as well.

Yeah, Federer was awful alot of times in 2003.

Good that we agree that Sampras 96 run was kind of awesome, I remember I was still happy he didnt go all the way 1996, by now I think it would be a greater story than Kafelnikov getting the title.

prima donna
05-17-2009, 06:09 PM
What Sampras did at RG 96 was underrated apart from the match against Draper, he defeated Gustafsson (good matchup), Bruguera, Todd Martin and Courier in 5 sets. The anaemia thing didn't help at all and it was very warm that year in Paris. The ball was flying through the air very quickly. Pete was just fodder for Kafelnikov.

Fed was awful against Horna in 2003 as well.
Which do you find to be more bothersome -- the hype surrounding Gasquet or the hype surrounding Federer's clay-court game ? I've noticed that both seem to annoy you.

marcRD
05-17-2009, 06:16 PM
You are at it again I see. You are bringing this up with Fed, then go on and say haha Sampras beat Bruguera at RG 1996, when Bruguera was coming back from an ankle ligament injury, which left him short of match conditioning, as he only came back a few tournaments before RG, but not a surprise you forget this.

In other words, you are ignoring one particular circumstance which doesn't favour your tinted view, while using an excuse to justify a loss by Federer. In essence it means both of these guys on the respective days, weren't good enough to win their particular matches.

Well, Bruguera just never impressed me. Yeah, I really dont remember Bruguera was coming back from an injury when he lost to Sampras but Sampras didnt do too bad when he lost against Bruguera 93 and by then Sampras had still not peaked. I was never impressed with Bruguera, Courier or Muster on clay, they were just taking advantage of the lack of greater players on the surface, but that is obviously no more than an opinion (I have already made my arguments on why clay specialists and not great players dominated the 90s). I remember I was absolutely sure he would be slaughtered by Guga in the final 97, I knew nothing about Guga except that he obviously was a much more special player than the Musters and the Brugueras of the past (I was 12 so maybe I just didnt know too much about tennis back then, but I knew Guga had something special).

Speculation about how Bruguera and Federer would do against each other is just speculation. I can say Sampras defeated Bruguera so Federer should have no problem against him, you can say Federer lost to Horna and Mantilla 2003, both obviously lesser players than Bruguera. In the end we will simply hold on to our opinions no matter what happens.

Action Jackson
05-17-2009, 06:16 PM
Which do you find to be more bothersome -- the hype surrounding Gasquet or the hype surrounding Federer's clay-court game ? I've noticed that both seem to annoy you.

Federer has had some good results on the clay, actually his results before 2004 on the surface are more interesting than now. Even with the BH flaw and the lack of patience, it was good watching the potential, some days it was there, then not.

So that annoys me less, because at least there are foundations there, but with people like marcRD who conveniently overlooks too many factors and just jumps on recent results, and we know the problem of comparing eras.

marcRD
05-17-2009, 06:47 PM
By achievment alone, Federer vs Bruguera on clay:

Roland Garros: Federer got 3 runner ups and 1 semifinal, Bruguera got 2 trophies, 1 final and 1 SF. Bruguera leads there so far, Federer needs one victory or 2 finals to get to the Bruguera level (counting a runner up as valued half of a tournament victory).

Master series: Bruguera got 2 AMS and 2 finals. Federer got 5 AMS and 6 finals. Federer leads big time on master series.

If we count a grand slam as valued 2000, a final 1000, a semifinal 500 and a AMS title beeing worth 500 and a final beeing worth 250 I get:

Bruguera 7000
Federer 7500
(Muster 5750)

Well, maybe a grand slam should be worth something like 3000 and you get Bruguera ahead of Federer, but I need to say there are plaenty of ways you can see Federers results as greater than Bruguera.


Final verdict should in the end be be Bruguera ranked ahead of Federer because grand slam tropjies are so much more important than the master series or beeing runner up, their worth can barely be meassured but Federers career has not ended yet and if he keeps beeing consistent in RG even without ever winning the tournament I could rank him ahead of Bruguera based only on his results on clay.

Anyway I have no doubt Federers achievments on clay are ahead of Muster anyway you want to meassure it except if you value a RG trophy more than anything else, then Gaudio and Chang also should be ranked ahead of Federer which is absurd.

CyBorg
05-17-2009, 06:53 PM
The difference between Federer and Bruguera is that Bruguera preferred the RG/Monte Carlo surfaces - the really slow ones and frankly the most important ones. Roger has won four Hamburgs and now one Madrid. Let's face it - these are not as important as Monte Carlo, RG or even Rome.

The other factor is killer instinct. Bruguera had it. I don't think Roger does. At least not on clay.

Action Jackson
05-17-2009, 07:07 PM
The difference between Federer and Bruguera is that Bruguera preferred the RG/Monte Carlo surfaces - the really slow ones and frankly the most important ones. Roger has won four Hamburgs and now one Madrid. Let's face it - these are not as important as Monte Carlo, RG or even Rome.

The other factor is killer instinct. Bruguera had it. I don't think Roger does. At least not on clay.

Sergi had good records there, actually I have to bump that 3 clay TMS thread and you will see it all there. Hamburg was always the ugly one compared to Monte Carlo and Rome, this was not a surprise and this was the case in Borg's day and the like.

Hamburg was the slowest actually, as the ball didn't get up as high and that is perfect for Federer, whereas Madrid it goes the through the air quicker. Sergi loved playing in Gstaad which is 1050m above, as he could run all day, when at his best he didn't miss much and could hit quality passes off both sides. I mean he beat Rafter on grass, so it's not like he couldn't slice on fast skidding surface, let alone clay.

marcRD
05-17-2009, 07:08 PM
The difference between Federer and Bruguera is that Bruguera preferred the RG/Monte Carlo surfaces - the really slow ones and frankly the most important ones. Roger has won four Hamburgs and now one Madrid. Let's face it - these are not as important as Monte Carlo, RG or even Rome.

The other factor is killer instinct. Bruguera had it. I don't think Roger does. At least not on clay.

The greatest clay player is the one who can peform on all all kind of clay, I think Federer had more diversity in his clay results than Bruguera because he is not a specialist and can play on all surfaces but Nadal has always been there in the finals in MC, Rome and RG. I see no reason to rank MC and Rome ahead of Hamburg or the new tournament Madrid. All the greatest players played there, the prize money was right, the worth in points was as much as MC and Rome.

However it should be mentioned that the greatest players of the era, Courier, Agassi and Sampras didnt care about Rome, MC or Hamburg and therefor I could just aswell say that their value used to be lesser than it is today.

About killer instinct I disagree. 1st of all it is a very subjective term and 2nd I dont really remember seeing much killer instinct from Bruguera when he faced greater opponents like that final against Guga 97 or even Muster used to be too much for him to handle.

Muster-Bruguera on clay was comparable to Federer-Nadal, very onesided and Bruguera had not the killer instincts to turn that matchup around. He was lucky he escaped facing Muster in the RG finals because Muster could only handle other clay specialists, the big serve and volleying guys and americans like Courier and Sampras was too much for him to handle.

its.like.that
05-18-2009, 05:43 AM
Some truly futile comparisons being made in here.

JolánGagó
05-18-2009, 05:46 AM
Some truly futile comparisons being made in here.

or in two really simple words: utter bullshit.

FlameOn
05-18-2009, 06:14 AM
Fed's a good claycourter. Not really sure how he ranks in the big scheme of things. I haven't really seen enough claycourters from the past. Andy after he lost to Fed said that his game translates well to all surfaces. :) Maybe stating the obvious but still.

Mimi
05-18-2009, 06:28 AM
before this Madriad win, even some of his fans wrote him off, and started thread like "what will Roger be remembered" as if he was finished, now suddenly after this win, he is one of the best claycourters ever, people are changing their opinion, like changing weather :p

Venle
05-18-2009, 06:31 AM
Roger is getting less credit on clay than he'd deserve: Rafa gets all the glory and for a reason.

Still, four finals in RG: that's something not everyone achieves. ;)

Chloe le Bopper
05-18-2009, 06:40 AM
... but Roger is getting dissed about sucking on clay.

Anybody who ever "dissed" Roger for "sucking on clay" really isn't worth attempting to have intelligent discourse with. Attempting to refute this absurd assertion with even more absurd ideas, such as this:

The thing is, he is DEFINATELY in the top 5 all-time clay court players ever.

makes you just as bad as those who claimed he "sucks" on clay to begin with. Federer is not one of the top 5 all-time clay court players.

Federer has made it to the finals of Roland Garros 4 times!! The thing is Nadal is absolutely a monster on clay and by far the best ever. For Federer to beat him sometimes and consistently do well at RG and even MS clay events, makes him easily one of the best all-time on clay.

Things started to go amuck in this passage when you declared Nadal "by far the best ever" on clay. Ignoring that, if this is what passes as logic, let me see how well it fits on another foot... should Nadal make the Wimbledon final again either this year or two, will he definitely be one of the top 5 all-time grasscourt players? No? Oh.

This entire thread is a troll, right?

crude oil
05-18-2009, 06:59 AM
lol at bruguera having killer instict...if anything sergi was the opposite. had he been more driven, more motivated and less lazy he could have achieved more. bruguera was not known for his mental toughness.

there is no disputing his clay talent though and no question i would place him above federer on clay in terms of greatness.

muster again was a warrior but the guy didnt have the longevity of seasons and he just wasnt a versatile clay court player. he matched up well against some and not others.

courier should rate higher but then again i would take federer over courier any day in a one on one matchup. federer would eat courier for breakfast. federer's fh, serve, movement >> courier...bh is about the same although edge to federer for variety.

there are others who deserve much higher mention obviously - lendl, borg, wilander just to name a few.

federer is pretty good on clay and if he can win one RG, he could become great.

FedFan_2007
05-18-2009, 07:01 AM
Anybody who ever "dissed" Roger for "sucking on clay" really isn't worth attempting to have intelligent discourse with. Attempting to refute this absurd assertion with even more absurd ideas, such as this:



makes you just as bad as those who claimed he "sucks" on clay to begin with. Federer is not one of the top 5 all-time clay court players.



Things started to go amuck in this passage when you declared Nadal "by far the best ever" on clay. Ignoring that, if this is what passes as logic, let me see how well it fits on another foot... should Nadal make the Wimbledon final again either this year or two, will he definitely be one of the top 5 all-time grasscourt players? No? Oh.

This entire thread is a troll, right?

Wait you are saying if Nadal has 2 Wimbledon titles and 3 other finals that doesn't make him one of the all time greatest grasscourt players?

JediFed
05-18-2009, 09:54 AM
Hmm.

You've left out another big name, Connors.

Borg, Nadal, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerton are the big 5.

Courier, Bruguera, Vilas, Muster, Nastase, Kodes, Federer are the second tier.

I'd rank him the 12th best claycourter in his career, behind the big 5 and the little 6.

Courier, 3 French Opens. Bruguera, 2 French Opens, Kodes, 2 French Opens, Muster, A French and pretty much every other single clay title. Nastase, French, RU at the French, 3 at Monte Carlo and 2 at Rome.

I think he's better then Connors though. Win at the USO on clay, but none of the others.

Federer seems to me similar to Nastase who was a pretty darn good claycourter.

Mimi
05-18-2009, 10:10 AM
3 finals, not yet 4 finals, though it may be coming:wavey:
Roger is getting less credit on clay than he'd deserve: Rafa gets all the glory and for a reason.

Still, four finals in RG: that's something not everyone achieves. ;)

HNCS
05-18-2009, 10:26 AM
aren't we getting ahead of ourselves? Sure he is a really good clay court player, but at the moment he's just potentially in the top 5. Let him win RG first.

I'm satisfied with just the GOAT. Don't need to be clay GOAT. though a proper grass GOAT will be nice. hmmmmm

Action Jackson
05-18-2009, 10:29 AM
Hmm.

You've left out another big name, Connors.

Borg, Nadal, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerton are the big 5.

Courier, Bruguera, Connors, Muster, Nastase, Kodes and Federer are the second tier.

I'd rank him the 12th best claycourter in his career, behind the big 5 and the little 6.

Courier, 3 French Opens. Bruguera, 2 French Opens, Kodes, 2 French Opens, Connors, US Open plus plenty of other clay titles. Muster, A French and pretty much every other single clay title. Nastase, French, RU at the French, 3 at Monte Carlo and 2 at Rome.

Federer seems to me similar to Nastase who was a pretty darn good claycourter.

You lost it there with Connors. I am sorry Connors never won a red clay title and those are the ones that count, green and red clay play very differently.

Vilas better than Connors on clay, that is obvious.

JediFed
05-18-2009, 10:33 AM
Vilas! I knew I'd forgotton someone.

As for Connors, red clay or green clay, he was a pretty good claycourter and should be up there with the others. He beat none other then Bjorn at the USO in 1976.

Edit, thought for sure he had some Euro titles in there. I stand corrected.

Action Jackson
05-18-2009, 10:59 AM
Vilas! I knew I'd forgotton someone.

As for Connors, red clay or green clay, he was a pretty good claycourter and should be up there with the others. He beat none other then Bjorn at the USO in 1976.

Edit, thought for sure he had some Euro titles in there. I stand corrected.

They are different surfaces, did he win any big events in Europe? No, he didn't, therefore he can't be considered anywhere near any top tier on clay. If he was that good, then he'd have won a red clay title. I wouldn't put Connors above McEnroe on clay let alone Federer.

gjr
05-18-2009, 11:21 AM
If it wasn't for Nadal, Fed would surely have one FO, possibly more. Then again, if it wasn't for Fed, Roddick would probably have more than one slam. Swings and round-a-bouts.

History is written by the winners.

Har-Tru
05-18-2009, 11:26 AM
Roger is a good clay court player, better than many people consider him to be. But not top five all-time, not even Open Era.

Open Era:

Borg
Nadal
Kuerten
Lendl
Wilander
Vilas

Those are the ones that I'd rank above Federer on clay. I'm not sure about Bruguera.

TennisViewer531
05-18-2009, 11:39 AM
I'd rank Federer in the top 10 best claycourters... but not top five - so it's between 6 and 10. ;)

marcRD
05-18-2009, 01:34 PM
Well, it gets complicated if you count in Rosewall and Laver, really complicated. So I will only count those who made their whole career during the open era. I would have something like:

1.Nadal
2.Borg
3.Wilander
4.Kuerten
5.Lendl
6.Vilas
7.Bruguera
8.Courier
9.Federer
10.Ferrero
11-15.(Nastase, Kodes, Agassi, Muster, Panatta)

Merton
05-18-2009, 02:31 PM
Roger is better on clay than recent RG champs like Gaudio, Agassi and Moya but he is not among the best ever. It is important that he has never been the best clay court player in the world.

marcRD
05-18-2009, 02:34 PM
Roger is better on clay than recent RG champs like Gaudio, Agassi and Moya but he is not among the best ever. It is important that he has never been the best clay court player in the world.

Yes, but Vilas was never the best clay court player in the world anytime in his career. I still rank Vilas as nr 6 of the open era.

I think Federer has passed Ferrero´s achievments on clay too by now. Ferrero´s career was short, he was the best in the world for 2 years on clay and he choked a final against old man Costa (in the other final he had a virtual walkover against Verkerk), Federers longevity so far on clay from the 1st big title in 2002 Hamburg to 2009 Madrid is also quite impressive.

Merton
05-18-2009, 02:41 PM
Yes, but Vilas was never the best clay court player in the world anytime in his career. I still rank Vilas as nr 6 of the open era.

I think Federer has passed Ferrero´s achievments on clay too by now. Ferrero´s career was short, he was the best in the world for 2 years on clay and he choked a final against old man Costa, Federers longevity so far on clay from the 1st big title in 2002 Hamburg to 2009 Madrid is also quite impressive.

He was in 1977, when Borg skipped the clay season altogether, playing World Team Tennis instead. Besides, Vilas had exceptional impact on the game for clay.

Action Jackson
05-18-2009, 02:45 PM
Roger is better on clay than recent RG champs like Gaudio, Agassi and Moya but he is not among the best ever. It is important that he has never been the best clay court player in the world.

No probs with that. I mean Corretja is better than Gaudio on clay, but who won the Slam.

marcRD
05-18-2009, 02:47 PM
He was in 1977, when Borg skipped the clay season altogether, playing World Team Tennis instead. Besides, Vilas had exceptional impact on the game for clay.

Well, that is the gift Vilas got, he was never the greatest on clay he was just gifted a year without the greatest of his era and without a player he simply couldnt take a set from on clay. Vilas was lucky, I doubt Federer will be this lucky anytime in the future and if Nadal one year would get injured I doubt many people would rank Federers RG victory very high.

propi
05-18-2009, 03:05 PM
Sure Roger is currently the second best clay player right after Rafa, but considering him as top 5 on clay is just silly, sorry.
I mean you cannot justify that status because of the monster presence of Rafa; if he were top 5 he'd have some Roland Garros. We could say that, without Kuerten, Bruguera would have 3 Roland Garros, Corretja, one of the best slamless claycourters, would have his, etc... but ifs are not real, so Sergi won 2 Roland Garros and, sadly, Roger 0 (by now ;))
Oh! and the fact Sampras beat Bruguera in Roland Garros is just anecdotic... I mean their head to head is 3-2 for Sergi, who leads on clay (2-1) and hard court (1-0) only losing on carpet where Sergi, was pretty much a mess despite the fact that that match in the ATP championship was amazing, as incredible as the Becker- Sampras final that came 1 round later :)

Of course, if you haven't realized yet, Sergi is my very favourite tennis player ever :worship:

Jimnik
05-18-2009, 03:09 PM
Federer is one of the greatest indoor clay players of all time. Shame Roland Garros won't finish their retractable roof on time.

rocketassist
05-18-2009, 03:13 PM
Federer would be lucky to get top 10.

The top 5 is Borg, Lendl, Nadal, Wilander, Guga.

Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Vilas and Corretja would be my 6-10.

Fed would be in the same bracket as Gaudio, Gomez, Panatta, Costa, Rios. Top 15 perhaps.

Dougie
05-18-2009, 03:22 PM
I wouldn't specifically say a great clay courter, but rather a great player who had a very good game that worked on all surfaces. Apart from Nadal, most of the guys he faces on clay are playing the same game they would on any other surface, which is usually inferior to his own.

This is the best post of the thread, says it all. One of the reasons Federer doesn´t get so much respect on clay is that he doesn´t play the traditional clay game, which seems to make it difficult for some purists to acknowledge his results, that are actually pretty impressive.

Action Jackson
05-18-2009, 03:32 PM
This is the best post of the thread, says it all. One of the reasons Federer doesn´t get so much respect on clay is that he doesn´t play the traditional clay game, which seems to make it difficult for some purists to acknowledge his results, that are actually pretty impressive.

Actually it's far from the style that bothers me about Federer. It's important to look at all things, like I have said so many times so Agassi has to be better than Muster on clay because of RG results. Gaudio has to be better than Corretja.

Then the fact that hardcourt tennis is being played on all surfaces doesn't benefit Federer at all, so in other words all factors have to be taken into consideration and for the most part they aren't. Backhandmissle said it already, the fact that he is better at hardcourt tennis than his peers and the majority play that same style hardcourt style on clay, helps him, in addition to the lack of players who are at their best on a clay court, who don't ballbash.

Guga_fan
05-18-2009, 03:45 PM
Federer is good player on clay (not a claycourter), but people like to exaggerate. He has 3 RG finals, but he was never even near winning RG. There are very few claycourters in this era and most of them are mentally incapable of playing Federer. Davydenko is a big example, he should have beaten Federer in straights on RG 2007, but he lost in straights, Fed also got lucky against Nalbandian in 2006, when Dave had to withdraw.

w78dexon_y
05-18-2009, 03:49 PM
Federer has made it to the finals of Roland Garros 4 times!!.

And that's only because the rest of the field was too weak to seriously threat him. Last year Rog was lucky to go to the final: Djoker was on Nadal's side of the draw. Can you list here, who did Rog beat enroute to all his 4 FO finals? Borg, Guillermo Vila, Guga, Muster, Jim Courier...? gimme a break.

So, your observation is delusion!

Listen to this one: One of the best clay courters of all time took 4 games total in the FO final!?? A joke thread. Almost troll. Should we start new therad that Djokovic is one of the best claycourter all time, because he beat Rog in Rome, and outplayed Nadal in Madrid?? funny.

w78dexon_y
05-18-2009, 03:56 PM
Well, it gets complicated if you count in Rosewall and Laver, really complicated. So I will only count those who made their whole career during the open era. I would have something like:

1.Nadal
2.Borg
3.Wilander
4.Kuerten
5.Lendl
6.Vilas
7.Bruguera
8.Courier
9.Federer
10.Ferrero
11-15.(Nastase, Kodes, Agassi, Muster, Panatta)

I like this list. With adding that Agassi's name must go above Federer's. Adn BTW since you never won clay court GS, how can you be rated?? You cannot be rated. I would kick Federer's name off top ten at all.

marcRD
05-18-2009, 04:53 PM
Actually it's far from the style that bothers me about Federer. It's important to look at all things, like I have said so many times so Agassi has to be better than Muster on clay because of RG results. Gaudio has to be better than Corretja.

Corretja´s result in RG is better than Gaudio or atleast equal (2 runner ups, 1 sf and 3 qf>1 slam IMO). Agassi's result was without any doubt better than Muster.

If RG results are not everything you could say that Federers achievments on clay is greater than Bruguera, because 5 master series>2 master series and 6 AMS finals>2 AMS finals. No, tennis is measured by success on grand slams and everything else is just a small bonus.

Ad Wim
05-18-2009, 05:04 PM
You cannot be considered one of the greatest clay courters if you never won the French Open.

marcRD
05-18-2009, 05:08 PM
I like this list. With adding that Agassi's name must go above Federer's. Adn BTW since you never won clay court GS, how can you be rated?? You cannot be rated. I would kick Federer's name off top ten at all.

Ok, this is difficult. I agree that when we compare results, RG victory is just worth alot compared to almost anything. Federer and Agassi both got to 3 RG finals. Federer lost them all against Nadal while Agassi defeated Medvedev in 5 sets. Already there you have something I would call a differense in difficulty.

Still I really value Agassi's run in RG slightly above Federer. But is one RG worth more than 11 master series final and 5 master series titles?

Agassi never got to a semfinal in a master series, much because he didnt care, still I doubt he would be as conistent as Federer has been if he would put an effort on those tournaments.

I put Federer ahead of Agassi because the differense between a RG trophy and a RG runner up is less than 11 master series finals to 0 master series. You cant rate Gaudio ahead of Corretja or Coria aswell, you cant rate Bruguera and Courier as greater than Vilas because they won more RGs while Vilas was losing finals to Borg. You need to take more things into consideration.

w78dexon_y
05-18-2009, 05:52 PM
Ok, this is difficult. I agree that when we compare results, RG victory is just worth alot compared to almost anything. Federer and Agassi both got to 3 RG finals. Federer lost them all against Nadal while Agassi defeated Medvedev in 5 sets. Already there you have something I would call a differense in difficulty.

Still I really value Agassi's run in RG slightly above Federer. But is one RG worth more than 11 master series final and 5 master series titles?

Agassi never got to a semfinal in a master series, much because he didnt care, still I doubt he would be as conistent as Federer has been if he would put an effort on those tournaments.

I put Federer ahead of Agassi because the differense between a RG trophy and a RG runner up is less than 11 master series finals to 0 master series. You cant rate Gaudio ahead of Corretja or Coria aswell, you cant rate Bruguera and Courier as greater than Vilas because they won more RGs while Vilas was losing finals to Borg. You need to take more things into consideration.

well, if you wanna take all relevants into the formula, then here:

add total clay court points of a player, multiply it by the rate of the opponents he beat while earning all those points, and multiply by the "F", where "F" is the number of GS titles won on the particular surface!!? And then divide it all by the number of all failures he didn't suppose to do.!!?

Counting S/F and Finals? Yes, but only after you put # of the titles ahead! Makes no sense let rear wheels run ahead of the front ones?! If we do, then that means we're running backward!?

Did you know that Ivan Lendl made the most GS slams finals in tennis history?? *19* !! Are we going to count that? Or are we going to ingore that? hehe...you see the digree of difficulty here.

So, without splitting the hair, let's follow simple logic: one who didn't win a single GS, cannot be rated! Period. This is regardless of the field, conditions, luck, draw, etc. However, Rog is still active, so, has a chance. Till then kick him off the rated list for the top TEN. Just because there are more players who proved they deserve to be there. Gotta put right players on the right spots.

Beat Medvedev or whoever, it's a title! It's not Agassi's fault that Federer couldn't made it to the final, or Borg at his time. Are we going to discount all 13 Federer's GS titles because of who he beat in the finals? Beating Roddick, 19 yo Djoker, or inexperiend green Murray??Nope. A title is a TITLE.

Commander Data
05-18-2009, 05:54 PM
Can you list here, who did Rog beat enroute to all his 4 FO finals? Borg, Guillermo Vila, Guga, Muster, Jim Courier...? gimme a break.



You are not very smart are you?

w78dexon_y
05-18-2009, 06:07 PM
However, Rog is more than lucky. There are only THREE greatd clay court players at this time. Which means TWO serious opponents for him. Two years ago there were TWO, only!?? Which means ONE serious opponent!? Yet he didn't won the GS title?!

Why lucky? Well he can even win the title, yet facing only ONE of those two BIG opponents?!! All is depending on the draw, and the draw is randomly allocated match schedule!! Like lottery?! (stupid for the good of game. Taht's why I like wimble draw).

So, he can win FO with beating only ONE of those THREE great clay courters! That's exactly what happened yesterday. Taht's what happened last FO, Djoker was ousted in s/f by Nadal, yet Rog couldn't do much there!? What If he faced Djoker in s/f plus Nadal in final?! Then he probably would be able to get away with two bagles only!

lol

Corey Feldman
05-18-2009, 06:08 PM
best thing about a Rafa loss on clay is watching the panics his fans start going into for Roland Garros :lol:

w78dexon_y
05-18-2009, 06:09 PM
You are not very smart are you?

no i am not. How would you otherwise address me??

marcRD
05-18-2009, 06:10 PM
well, if you wanna take all relevants into the formula, then here:

add total clay court points of a player, multiply it by the rate of the opponents he beat while earning all those points, and multiply by the "F", where "F" is the number of GS titles won on the particular surface!!? And then divide it all by the number of all failures he didn't suppose to do.!!?

Counting S/F and Finals? Yes, but only after you put # of the titles ahead! Makes no sense let rear wheels run ahead of the front ones?! If we do, then that means we're running backward!?

Did you know that Ivan Lendl made the most GS slams finals in tennis history?? *19* !! Are we going to count that? Or are we going to ingore that? hehe...you see the digree of difficulty here.

So, without splitting the hair, let's follow simple logic: one who didn't win a single GS, cannot be rated! Period. This is regardless of the field, conditions, luck, draw, etc. However, Rog is still active, so, has a chance. Till then kick him off the rated list for the top TEN. Just because there are more players who proved they deserve to be there. Gotta put right players on the right spots.

Beat Medvedev or whoever, it's a title! It's not Agassi's fault that Federer couldn't made it to the final, or Borg at his time. Are we going to discount all 13 Federer's GS titles because of who he beat in the finals? Beating Roddick, 19 yo Djoker, or inexperiend green Murray??Nope. A title is a TITLE.

It makes no sense, you cant say Gaudio is greater than Coria and Corretja.

CyBorg
05-18-2009, 06:20 PM
He was in 1977, when Borg skipped the clay season altogether, playing World Team Tennis instead. Besides, Vilas had exceptional impact on the game for clay.

I'd say Vilas was the best on clay in 1982 for sure. Even though he lost to Wilander at RG.

MacTheKnife
05-18-2009, 07:23 PM
This is really a tough question and I haven't posted because I've changed my mind every time I think about it. To me it depends on how far down in the list you want to go to be considered "one of the best". Let's face it, how many of the guys on the list posted earlier (see below), that most of us agree on, could beat Nadal ?? If not for Nadal, Federer could well have 2 or 3 FOs in he pocket.
Benefit of the doubt he'd have won a couple without Nadal there. When you think about it that way, and think of who on this list would not have lost to Nadal either, then yea, I'd have to put Fed up there. Now when I say up there, I mean around 4 to 6. I can see Fed beating these guys if JesusFed showed up. Maybe not consistently, but he'd get his fair share of wins. And when you look this list, how many of these guys would beat Nadal if they had to have faced him 3 times at the FO.

3.Wilander
4.Kuerten
5.Lendl
6.Vilas
7.Bruguera
8.Courier

Matt01
05-18-2009, 07:28 PM
One of the reasons Federer doesn´t get so much respect on clay is that he doesn´t play the traditional clay game, which seems to make it difficult for some purists to acknowledge his results, that are actually pretty impressive.


One other reason maybe being that Federer lost a RG final to his nemesis Nadal last year with a bagel and a breadstick. Just a guess, though :lol:

Federer is a better claycourter than overrated Sampras (credit for that) but he's not among the best 5-8 claycourters ever. Obviously.

Collective
05-18-2009, 07:32 PM
Nadal
Borg
Kuerten
Vilas
Bruguera
Muster

Roger doesn't make the top 6... c'mon get real ppl.

w78dexon_y
05-18-2009, 07:41 PM
It makes no sense, you cant say Gaudio is greater than Coria and Corretja.

Well, then you come up with a formula here. It's doable. Everyone would really appreciate that. I do not have the time, plus it would be difficult getting into the database from the past (20, 30 years ago), to get all those points, rankings, match ups, and come up with something substantial.

It's a huge work, and somebody has to sponsor it.
Till then we can only argue.

MacTheKnife
05-18-2009, 07:44 PM
Well, then you come up with a formula here. It's doable. Everyone would really appreciate that. I do not have the time, plus it would be difficult getting into the database from the past (20, 30 years ago), to get all those points, rankings, match ups, and come up with something substantial.

It's a huge work, and somebody has to sponsor it.
Till then we can only argue.

Agree. As with many of our discussions, I don't think there is any way to get to a subjective answer on this. As usual it's all opinion. I can't even make up my own mind, but I would at least put Federer in the top 10 clay courters, and to me, that's one of the best ever.

Action Jackson
05-18-2009, 07:50 PM
Agree. As with many of our discussions, I don't think there is any way to get to a subjective answer on this. As usual it's all opinion. I can't even make up my own mind, but I would at least put Federer in the top 10 clay courters, and to me, that's one of the best ever.

There are many others that wouldn't and you can't measure it objectively at all, because objectivity doesn't exist.

Personally I wouldn't put Federer in the top 10, top 15 he could make, but not top 10 at all. There is a distinct lack of perspective.

As for the other part what era are you playing in? Do the other guys at their peak have the equipment of the days in their peak or does Nadal use the stuff they had in the 80s and 90s, if so, then he will get less spin obviously, think about it, which makes the era comparison very difficult.

miura
05-18-2009, 07:56 PM
Nadal
Borg
Kuerten
Vilas
Bruguera
Muster

Roger doesn't make the top 6... c'mon get real ppl.
Roger would have beaten all the above except Nadal if both played at their respective peaks. And don't come here with the new technology card.

Action Jackson
05-18-2009, 08:02 PM
Roger would have beaten all the above except Nadal if both played at their respective peaks. And don't come here with the new technology card.

Based on what exactly?

miura
05-18-2009, 08:03 PM
Based on what exactly?
It's my personal opinion. I watched hours of footage of all the players mentioned above and I really can't see any of them outplaying Roger.

Action Jackson
05-18-2009, 08:08 PM
It's my personal opinion. I watched hours of footage of all the players mentioned above and I really can't see any of them outplaying Roger.

In other words you are too biased to even have a slight bit of objectivity when it comes to this. Considering we are all biased to a degree, this has to be allowed for. It's either that and or you don't have a clue about match ups at all. I don't think it's the second one.

As for the technology thing, you can't avoid it, because it's a factor whether you like it or not, if you can't see why, then that's problematic.

MacTheKnife
05-18-2009, 08:11 PM
There are many others that wouldn't and you can't measure it objectively at all, because objectivity doesn't exist.

Personally I wouldn't put Federer in the top 10, top 15 he could make, but not top 10 at all. There is a distinct lack of perspective.

As for the other part what era are you playing in? Do the other guys at their peak have the equipment of the days in their peak or does Nadal use the stuff they had in the 80s and 90s, if so, then he will get less spin obviously, think about it, which makes the era comparison very difficult.

This is indeed a hard question to answer, and if you saw my earlier post, I change my mind on it every time I think about it. To me this is even more difficult than the GOAT discussion because we are picking out one surface. Tennis has changed so much on clay over the last 20-30 years because in those days, you had to get through a lot of "specialists" that came out of the woodwork during clay court season. Which these guys today really don't have to face to the same degree.
I remember story Mac tells that when he was coming up Gerulaitis told him, "you're going to fly all the way to Paris and lose to some guy you never heard of."
That's exactly what happened. That almost never happens to a top player today.
I can just try to visualize just like anybody else, and I do see many of the top clay courters of the past struggling with a guy like Nadal just like Fed has.
The bottom line is, we'll never really know and just have to speculate just like we always have.

Federerhingis
05-18-2009, 08:12 PM
There are many others that wouldn't and you can't measure it objectively at all, because objectivity doesn't exist.

Personally I wouldn't put Federer in the top 10, top 15 he could make, but not top 10 at all. There is a distinct lack of perspective.

As for the other part what era are you playing in? Do the other guys at their peak have the equipment of the days in their peak or does Nadal use the stuff they had in the 80s and 90s, if so, then he will get less spin obviously, think about it, which makes the era comparison very difficult.

I totally agree with you George, as a good a claycourter that Federer is he is no where near the best clay courters of all time. Furthermore, clay is Federer's worst surface and he's never won montecarlo or Rome, those variables alone diminish his chances, and of course he's not won a single Roland Garros that certainly disqualifies hime for the top 10.

I would say he's a top 10 claycourter if not top 5 of his generation and the past decade. However you can't compare him to the Vilas, Borgs and Brugueras of this world.

Action Jackson
05-18-2009, 08:22 PM
This is indeed a hard question to answer, and if you saw my earlier post, I change my mind on it every time I think about it. To me this is even more difficult than the GOAT discussion because we are picking out one surface. Tennis has changed so much on clay over the last 20-30 years because in those days, you had to get through a lot of "specialists" that came out of the woodwork during clay court season. Which these guys today really don't have to face to the same degree.
I remember story Mac tells that when he was coming up Gerulaitis told him, "you're going to fly all the way to Paris and lose to some guy you never heard of."
That's exactly what happened. That almost never happens to a top player today.
I can just try to visualize just like anybody else, and I do see many of the top clay courters of the past struggling with a guy like Nadal just like Fed has.
The bottom line is, we'll never really know and just have to speculate just like we always have.

Some things don't change over time and this is one thing in my case that doesn't change. It might over 3-4 years, but it's not likely. Of course tennis has changed over time, especially on clay, the same level of specialists aren't around, this is obvious enough and Federer has benefited from this, just like Graf benefited when Seles got stabbed.

This thread is not about Nadal is it? He'd do well in any era, but how do you know he'd play the same way if he was playing earlier, or the guys that were great before, wouldn't adjust to the current times? Champions will be champs in any era, that goes for the past and for the future.

Bottom line is there is a lack of perspective and this is why naked data should never trusted alone, without looking at all of the circumstances.

Arkulari
05-18-2009, 08:26 PM
I have always said that the GOAT thing is completely pointless, 'cuz everything has changed in tennis, you cannot compare someone like Rod Laver in the 60's with Roger Federer in the 2000's, the technology, the courts, the players biotype have changed so much, the comparison is practically impossible

for example: would Rafa be as successful as he is now in the 60's? well, with wooden racquets we would have to wait and see if he would have gotten there without his main weapon: Topspin :shrug:

completely pointless

Action Jackson
05-18-2009, 08:27 PM
I totally agree with you George, as a good a claycourter that Federer is he is no where near the best clay courters of all time. Furthermore, clay is Federer's worst surface and he's never won montecarlo or Rome, those variables alone diminish his chances, and of course he's not won a single Roland Garros that certainly disqualifies hime for the top 10.

I would say he's a top 10 claycourter if not top 5 of his generation and the past decade. However you can't compare him to the Vilas, Borgs and Brugueras of this world.

For a primarily attacking player he is one of the best of all time on that surface this can't be denied. It's actually good that Nadal is around, because if Fed won 3 RG's, then that wouldn't be good, same as Fed is around on grass, because Roddick could have been a multi Wimbledon winner.

Of course he is top 5 of his generation that is clear enough, but too many are just blinded by their love of Federer and can't see past it. I mean you got guys like marc laughing at Bruguera losing to Sampras, but don't acknowledge or excuse Fed losing to Guga, Mantilla and Horna, then forget losing to a past it Costa as well.

MacTheKnife
05-18-2009, 08:29 PM
Some things don't change over time and this is one thing in my case that doesn't change. It might over 3-4 years, but it's not likely. Of course tennis has changed over time, especially on clay, the same level of specialists aren't around, this is obvious enough and Federer has benefited from this, just like Graf benefited when Seles got stabbed.

This thread is not about Nadal is it? He'd do well in any era, but how do you know he'd play the same way if he was playing earlier, or the guys that were great before, wouldn't adjust to the current times? Champions will be champs in any era, that goes for the past and for the future.

Bottom line is there is a lack of perspective and this is why naked data should never trusted alone, without looking at all of the circumstances.

Looks to me like we agree on this, we don't know, and never will. But yet, we continue to have these "greatest ever" or what ever discussions to which there is really no answer. But there's nothing I'd like better than to see a Nadal-Borg, or Vilas-Federer match. We can just dream about what that might look like.

miura
05-18-2009, 08:33 PM
In other words you are too biased to even have a slight bit of objectivity when it comes to this. Considering we are all biased to a degree, this has to be allowed for. It's either that and or you don't have a clue about match ups at all. I don't think it's the second one.

As for the technology thing, you can't avoid it, because it's a factor whether you like it or not, if you can't see why, then that's problematic.
Objective or not, in tennis as in a large percentage of other sports, athletes of old are inferior to the new ones. This is reflected in the amount of work and effort put into the sport and as you mentioned, also technology will have a role into it all. The top players of today is required to focus the large part of their lives to working out and practicing, players of old did not work as much out or practice as much as players of today. Of course this doesn't go for all of them, but a large majority. When I match old matches, I always think the players of today would have reached that dropshot, put more effort into that shot or be able to endure longer matches better. This also goes for other sports, for instance soccer. Whenever I watch some of the matches from the 60's-80's I can't help myself but think how the level of play has increased drastically from back then. The techniques, tricks, running techniques, the list goes on.

My point is, the sport evolves in terms of physical requirements and techniques. You have to train harder and put more effort into becoming a top pro today versus 30 years ago. It's only natural that the players today would beat players of old in my point of view.

Action Jackson
05-18-2009, 08:33 PM
Looks to me like we agree on this, we don't know, and never will. But yet, we continue to have these "greatest ever" or what ever discussions to which there is really no answer. But there's nothing I'd like better than to see a Nadal-Borg, or Vilas-Federer match. We can just dream about what that might look like.

In different ways yes, we do, we both know it's a pointless discussion, yet still get stuck in them. It actually helps to have seen the players play at their time and take into account wooden racquet, strings, game styles and courts, but it's the same thing, some people can't see past their faves.

oranges
05-18-2009, 08:34 PM
Roger would have beaten all the above except Nadal if both played at their respective peaks. And don't come here with the new technology card.

What peak are we talking about? He was already No1 IIRC when he lost to Guga, who himself was not at his peak.

Action Jackson
05-18-2009, 08:38 PM
Objective or not, in tennis as in a large percentage of other sports, athletes of old are inferior to the new ones. This is reflected in the amount of work and effort put into the sport and as you mentioned, also technology will have a role into it all. The top players of today is required to focus the large part of their lives to working out and practicing, players of old did not work as much out or practice as much as players of today. Of course this doesn't go for all of them, but a large majority. When I match old matches, I always think the players of today would have reached that dropshot, put more effort into that shot or be able to endure longer matches better. This also goes for other sports, for instance soccer. Whenever I watch some of the matches from the 60's-80's I can't help myself but think how the level of play has increased drastically from back then. The techniques, tricks, running techniques, the list goes on.

You actually didn't need to write that much. Volandri would beat Borg on clay, Roddick would clean up with Wilander. That is clearly obvious, but no way those 2 players are better on clay at their peaks than the ones than Borg and Wilander.

Next of all, things have to be judged in the context of their respective times and you aren't even close to doing that, because it wouldn't hold up to your view. There is a reason the game was like that in the day, but as I said champions would be champions in any era, because what made them champs transcends time.

Football, well it's sprinters playing football and there isn't much technical stuff, it's different.

marcRD
05-18-2009, 09:37 PM
Well, then you come up with a formula here. It's doable. Everyone would really appreciate that. I do not have the time, plus it would be difficult getting into the database from the past (20, 30 years ago), to get all those points, rankings, match ups, and come up with something substantial.

It's a huge work, and somebody has to sponsor it.
Till then we can only argue.

Sure I can do a simple system counting the highlights of players careers , but it will be subjective (and you should take more things into acount). In the end how much is a grand slam worth? Compared to runner up? Compared to master series?

Lets say a grand slam is worth 2.5 times beeing runner up, fair enought?

A grand slam could be worth 5 master series or 5 grand slam semifinals. A master series final can be worth 2 times less than a master series title.

So you get:

grand slam 2500
grand slam final 1000
master series 500
grand slam semifinal 500
master series final 250

You get Federer with 7500 and Agassi with 5750 and I really put alot of value on his grand slam as you can see.

On my list it would be:

1.Nadal 15500
2.Borg 17750
3.Wilander 12000
4.Kuerten 10000
5.Lendl 12250
6.Vilas 8750
7.Bruguera 8000
8.Courier 7500
9.Federer 7500
10.Ferrero 6250
(Muster 6250, Agassi 5750...)

I think it is a fair representation of clay greatness. Gaudio only gets his fluke 2500 points while Corretja gand Coria gets 3500.

What you need to take into consideration is that Agassi rarely played the clay TMS and when he played he most often lost in the 1st round. This is why I probably rank him higher than Muster, maybe I should have him in my top 10 list behind Federer. Other things which should be mentioned is that Borg rarely played the TMS before RG and never played Hamburg, Courier didnt play the full clay season aswell. Vilas and Federer lived in the era of Borg and Nadal. Lendl and Wilander were 2 clay greats living in the same era.

To be honest Kuerten should be nr5 and it may have been bias to put him infront of Lendl.

marcRD
05-18-2009, 09:47 PM
For a primarily attacking player he is one of the best of all time on that surface this can't be denied. It's actually good that Nadal is around, because if Fed won 3 RG's, then that wouldn't be good, same as Fed is around on grass, because Roddick could have been a multi Wimbledon winner.

Of course he is top 5 of his generation that is clear enough, but too many are just blinded by their love of Federer and can't see past it. I mean you got guys like marc laughing at Bruguera losing to Sampras, but don't acknowledge or excuse Fed losing to Guga, Mantilla and Horna, then forget losing to a past it Costa as well.

Well we could go around in circles with this. 2003 Federer lost to philippoussis on his favorite clay tournament Hamburg, lost to Horna in the 1st round in RG and lost to Mantilla in the Rome final. Federer was completely inconsistant and could lose to anyone just like he could win against any player in the world on any surface.

I dont take any of his results that year seriously (if you do, you could say Philippoussis like players would cause serious trouble to him on clay), 2004 is more debatable. Federer had confidence and was nr1, but he just didnt care about Monte carlo and Rome was his 1st tournament on clay. His preparation for RG was horrible and Kuerten easily took care of him.

rocketassist
05-18-2009, 09:49 PM
Federer in his no 2 on clay era has played hardcourt tennis against players playing hardcourt tennis on clay.

The only guy who plays clay court tennis at a strong level these days is Nadal.

Fakervic, Murray, Del Potro, Davydenko, they all play hardcourt games and take them onto clay.

This is why the clay court era is so weak or is considered 'weak'.

MacTheKnife
05-18-2009, 09:58 PM
Federer in his no 2 on clay era has played hardcourt tennis against players playing hardcourt tennis on clay.

The only guy who plays clay court tennis at a strong level these days is Nadal.

Fakervic, Murray, Del Potro, Davydenko, they all play hardcourt games and take them onto clay.

This is why the clay court era is so weak or is considered 'weak'.

That is true for most tournaments now. Name one tournament where the same top 5 guys are not the favorites now. That's why it's actually easier to seed now than it used to be. There used to be a lot of bitching about how let's say Wimby, FO, and USO were seeded. Now, what the hell difference does it make.

Johnny Groove
05-18-2009, 10:00 PM
What peak are we talking about? He was already No1 IIRC when he lost to Guga, who himself was not at his peak.

Federer lost that match for a variety of reasons.

1. Fed's movement on clay was average at best. He rarely slid and he slipped and lost his footing many times. He is much better moving now.

2. Guga was able to spot serve very well, usually to the Fed backhand, drawing a weak Federer reply, which Guga was able to pounce on. Roger's returning on clay is much better now.

3. Roger basically played a hardcourt game. He went for aggresive, flat shots mostly, shanked plenty of backhands, and was at the net a good amount. Guga's BH DTL was awesome as always, and many time when Roger was pushed out wide on his forehand side, he was unable to even get the ball back into play, let alone get the point back to a neutral position. He now plays smarter on clay and uses a heavier ball with higher net clearance from a wide position to get back into the point as opposed to going for a flat winner, a low percentage play.

Now, Roger is much better now than he was then, while Guga was well past his peak. Personally, I think a peak Guga would beat peak Roger on clay in 4.

As for the thread starter, calling Federer one of the best clay-courters ever depends on what you describe as it. Top 10 of all time? Top 20? I fit him somewhere in the 15-20 range on clay.

marcRD
05-18-2009, 10:19 PM
Federer in his no 2 on clay era has played hardcourt tennis against players playing hardcourt tennis on clay.

The only guy who plays clay court tennis at a strong level these days is Nadal.

Fakervic, Murray, Del Potro, Davydenko, they all play hardcourt games and take them onto clay.

This is why the clay court era is so weak or is considered 'weak'.

Laver played grasscourt tennis on clay, serve and volleying and playing aggresive tennis. That doesnt his RGs be worth any less, does it?

Federer plays the way he can to win matches on clay, he knows the surface inside out, knows how to slide and use angles, his topspin forehand is still one of the most deadly forehands on clay. He has excellent touch and his dropshots are topclass, he can also go to the net to finish points against too defensive players. He has an allcourt game which would work on any kind of clay in any era, I dont see what you mean that he plays hardcourt tennis on clay, it is quite obvious he plays differently on clay compared to hardcourt.

Djokovic also knows how to play on a claycourt and has amazing patience, great movement and he has that unique shot which is a gem on clay which is the sliding backhand when he is under pressire. Dont know why you mention Davydenko, his game is perfect for clay, he rarely misses, his defense is stunning and he has a great return game.

Murray is the only one on your list who doesnt know how to play on clay and plays hardcourt tennis on clay.

MacTheKnife
05-18-2009, 10:23 PM
Updated this post due to unreliable data that was removed.

casabe
05-18-2009, 10:27 PM
He migth be the best clay court player to not win roland garros

rocketassist
05-18-2009, 10:29 PM
He migth be the best clay court player to not win roland garros

Alex Corretja.

rocketassist
05-18-2009, 10:29 PM
Laver played grasscourt tennis on clay, serve and volleying and playing aggresive tennis. That doesnt his RGs be worth any less, does it?

Federer plays the way he can to win matches on clay, he knows the surface inside out, knows how to slide and use angles, his topspin forehand is still one of the most deadly forehands on clay. He has excellent touch and his dropshots are topclass, he can also go to the net to finish points against too defensive players. He has an allcourt game which would work on any kind of clay in any era, I dont see what you mean that he plays hardcourt tennis on clay, it is quite obvious he plays differently on clay compared to hardcourt.

Djokovic also knows how to play on a claycourt and has amazing patience, great movement and he has that unique shot which is a gem on clay which is the sliding backhand when he is under pressire. Dont know why you mention Davydenko, his game is perfect for clay, he rarely misses, his defense is stunning and he has a great return game.

Murray is the only one on your list who doesnt know how to play on clay and plays hardcourt tennis on clay.

They all hit flat strokes and flat double handers and play the same games on clay. I have never seen Del Potro or anyone waver from their usual styles.

Federer generates angles anyway on any surface.

And as for Laver, different era, totally different technology and creations.

MacTheKnife
05-18-2009, 10:30 PM
Here's Borg's breakdown by year.

Deleted data sheet due to errors.

marcRD
05-18-2009, 10:35 PM
Alex Corretja.

You can not be serious, Corretja is not in any world greater than Federer on clay.

CyBorg
05-18-2009, 10:45 PM
Here's Borg's breakdown by year.

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/8708/borg.png

I can spot a mistake right away. Borg was 22-0 on red clay in 1977. I bet there's more mistakes.

Actually, WTF, the yearly W-L are totally messed up. Borg won close to 100 matches in 1979.

MacTheKnife
05-18-2009, 10:52 PM
I can spot a mistake right away. Borg was 22-0 on red clay in 1977. I bet there's more mistakes.

Actually, WTF, the yearly W-L are totally messed up. Borg won close to 100 matches in 1979.

Good question. Here's the link. I've used this data base before and it's always been reliable.

http://www.tenniscorner.net/

And here's the link straight to the Borg data sheet.

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=m&action=matchstats&playerid=BOB004

CyBorg
05-18-2009, 10:54 PM
You actually didn't need to write that much. Volandri would beat Borg on clay, Roddick would clean up with Wilander. That is clearly obvious, but no way those 2 players are better on clay at their peaks than the ones than Borg and Wilander.

Next of all, things have to be judged in the context of their respective times and you aren't even close to doing that, because it wouldn't hold up to your view. There is a reason the game was like that in the day, but as I said champions would be champions in any era, because what made them champs transcends time.

Football, well it's sprinters playing football and there isn't much technical stuff, it's different.

I can tell by watching pros of the past like Laver that they are better than Roddick. This whole argument that somehow today's pros are so much fitter and better sounds like a complete distraction to me.

First of all, the training is not that much better. Guys don't frequent gyms. Very few of them do on a regular basis.

Secondly, what truly makes a player great is his mind and his pure skills.

Laver was great because he had amazing vision, anticipation and superb hands. Roddick, no matter what he puts in his body will never have those skills. Nor will he ever have that great mind.

JediFed
05-18-2009, 10:59 PM
Number 6 should be Jan Kodes. He's better then Vilas.

Kodes ROME SF
Kodes HAMBURG SF
Kodes HAMBURG SF
Kodes HAMBURG SF
Kodes MADRID SF
Kodes ROME F
Kodes ROME F
Kodes HAMBURG F
Kodes MADRID W
Kodes ROME W
Kodes RG W
Kodes RG W

Or 9750 points based on this system. That puts Federer as number 10.

CyBorg
05-18-2009, 10:59 PM
Good question. Here's the link. I've used this data base before and it's always been reliable.

http://www.tenniscorner.net/

And here's the link straight to the Borg data sheet.

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=m&action=matchstats&playerid=BOB004

Yeah, it's wrong. Borg won circa 600 matches in his career. Not 370 or whatever it says.

CyBorg
05-18-2009, 11:00 PM
Number 6 should be Jan Kodes. He's better then Vilas.

Kodes ROME SF
Kodes HAMBURG SF
Kodes HAMBURG SF
Kodes HAMBURG SF
Kodes MADRID SF
Kodes ROME F
Kodes ROME F
Kodes HAMBURG F
Kodes MADRID W
Kodes ROME W
Kodes RG W
Kodes RG W

Or 9750 points based on this system. That puts Federer as number 10.

You probably think both Hamburg and Madrid were masters series tournaments in those years?

And no he wasn't.

MacTheKnife
05-18-2009, 11:03 PM
Yeah, it's wrong. Borg won circa 600 matches in his career. Not 370 or whatever it says.

Yep, I deleted the other sheets until I can check it out. Something is wrong with this data base, I've used it before and it was correct. Thanks for catching..

Har-Tru
05-18-2009, 11:05 PM
Laver played grasscourt tennis on clay, serve and volleying and playing aggresive tennis. That doesnt his RGs be worth any less, does it?

No he didn't. Like the vast majority of players of his time, he played S&V virtually 100% of the time on grass, and played a far more agressive tennis on clay than today. That was the kind of clay game at the time. But to say that Laver played grasscourt tennis on clay is absolutely false.

JediFed
05-18-2009, 11:05 PM
He also has 2 finals on Nice too.

I don't know what you want to count as 'Masters series' tournaments back in those days as the system was different, but if you count the same tournaments, those are the results you get.

JediFed
05-18-2009, 11:17 PM
Nastase Monte Carlo SF
Nastase Rome SF
Nastase Madrid SF
Nastase Hamburg SF
Nastase Rome SF
Nastase Hamburg F
Nastase Monte Carlo F
Nastase Rome F
Nastase Madrid W
Nastase Madrid W
Nastase Rome W
Nastase Rome W
Nastase Madrid W
Nastase Monte Carlo W
Nastase Monte Carlo W
Nastase Monte Carlo W
Nastase Madrid W
Nastase RG F
Nastase RG W

Nastase also has 15250 points, putting him up there with Nadal.

marcRD
05-18-2009, 11:20 PM
No he didn't. Like the vast majority of players of his time, he played S&V virtually 100% of the time on grass, and played a far more agressive tennis on clay than today. That was the kind of clay game at the time. But to say that Laver played grasscourt tennis on clay is absolutely false.

"that was the kind of clay game at the time"

That was the kind of clay game they played at the time and this is the clay tennis we play today, people need to stop complaining.

I somehow have a hard time imagening that Rosewall and Laver growing up on in australia knew more about playing on clay than Djokovic, Federer and Nadal.

Har-Tru
05-18-2009, 11:21 PM
"that was the kind of clay game at the time"

That was the kind of clay game they played at the time and this is the clay tennis we play today, people need to stop complaining.

:confused:

marcRD
05-18-2009, 11:28 PM
:confused:

Maybe you didnt hear people saying players today play hardcourt tennis on clay?

Har-Tru
05-18-2009, 11:44 PM
oh I getcha now. Yes, tennis evolves the way it does and there's no way around it.

Laver and Rosewall were great clay court players who were intelligent enough to adjust and adapt their game to a surface that wasn't the one they grew up playing on. In Rosewall's case, his game was naturally very well suited to clay.

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 12:05 AM
He also has 2 finals on Nice too.

I don't know what you want to count as 'Masters series' tournaments back in those days as the system was different, but if you count the same tournaments, those are the results you get.

I can tell you one thing with a great degree on confidence - neither Madrid nor Hamburg were big events in those years.

The best clay courter in 1970 and 1971 was Laver. In neither of those years he played Roland Garros. Kodes won his share of clay court events against most iffy competition and includes the RG titles.

Arkulari
05-19-2009, 12:05 AM
some players play better in "foreign" surfaces, let's see Roger for example, grass is the most suited surface for his game :wavey:

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 12:06 AM
Nastase Monte Carlo SF
Nastase Rome SF
Nastase Madrid SF
Nastase Hamburg SF
Nastase Rome SF
Nastase Hamburg F
Nastase Monte Carlo F
Nastase Rome F
Nastase Madrid W
Nastase Madrid W
Nastase Rome W
Nastase Rome W
Nastase Madrid W
Nastase Monte Carlo W
Nastase Monte Carlo W
Nastase Monte Carlo W
Nastase Madrid W
Nastase RG F
Nastase RG W

Nastase also has 15250 points, putting him up there with Nadal.

Ugh. Just stop.

rocketassist
05-19-2009, 12:41 AM
Madrid wasn't even clay then :haha:

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 01:05 AM
Madrid wasn't even clay then :haha:

Madrid was a clay event played in the fall, I believe. It was a fairly respected event, but not masters quality.

I detest these dumb formulas cooked up by silly kids between homework assignments.

TennisViewer531
05-19-2009, 01:07 AM
some players play better in "foreign" surfaces, let's see Roger for example, grass is the most suited surface for his game :wavey:

I agree :D

casabe
05-19-2009, 02:40 AM
Alex Corretja.
another one....but not as good as fed in my opinion

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 03:59 AM
Madrid was a clay event played in the fall, I believe. It was a fairly respected event, but not masters quality.

On a different note. I got your rep on the ATP database and I use it a lot. Just thought I had found one I could dump data into excel and manipulate it the way I wanted. Obviously it is not correct though, so I may go through the ATP data base and compute those winning percentages for clay courters again, accurately. It just a lot more work using the ATP site. It might be interesting to see though.

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 04:35 AM
The ITF site is not bad. It might have slightly more accurate results. But ATP is easier to use - for me, at least.

I also have fairly in-depth results for Borg on clay. I collect his results - tour and exo. I got most of these through message boards and some archival information. Too bad there does not exist a comprehensive website that has all of these for every player.

Action Jackson
05-19-2009, 07:54 AM
No he didn't. Like the vast majority of players of his time, he played S&V virtually 100% of the time on grass, and played a far more agressive tennis on clay than today. That was the kind of clay game at the time. But to say that Laver played grasscourt tennis on clay is absolutely false.

Then again most didn't realise Laver had a single hand backhand and that had topspin. Of course he didn't play grass tennis on clay, nor did he hit mass moonballs either.

I can tell by watching pros of the past like Laver that they are better than Roddick. This whole argument that somehow today's pros are so much fitter and better sounds like a complete distraction to me.

First of all, the training is not that much better. Guys don't frequent gyms. Very few of them do on a regular basis.

Secondly, what truly makes a player great is his mind and his pure skills.

Laver was great because he had amazing vision, anticipation and superb hands. Roddick, no matter what he puts in his body will never have those skills. Nor will he ever have that great mind.

They are fitter this is true, but this is not the only thing that counts. Skills transfer through all generations as does mental toughness. Laver, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Rosewall would be great players in any era.

oh I getcha now. Yes, tennis evolves the way it does and there's no way around it.

Laver and Rosewall were great clay court players who were intelligent enough to adjust and adapt their game to a surface that wasn't the one they grew up playing on. In Rosewall's case, his game was naturally very well suited to clay.

They had to adjust their games, one because the surfaces were clearly different and second of all they grew up on a clay like surface, with plenty of on court craft.

The problem is that some Fedtards just can't accept the facts that don't suit their view.

habibko
05-19-2009, 08:11 AM
The problem is that some Fedtards just can't accept the facts that don't suit their view.

Fedtards are like the Jews in the world, many prosecute and hate us, for our only sin is that we are awaiting the true JesusFed to come back, and we hate pigs, but we know we are right, for we are the chosen fanbase, and we shall take back Wimbledon our Holy land :rocker2:

superslam77
05-19-2009, 01:32 PM
Fedtards are like the Jews in the world, many prosecute and hate us, for our only sin is that we are awaiting the true JesusFed to come back, and we hate pigs, but we know we are right, for we are the chosen fanbase, and we shall take back Wimbledon our Holy land :rocker2:

:rolls:

Collective
05-19-2009, 01:32 PM
Roger would have beaten all the above except Nadal if both played at their respective peaks. And don't come here with the new technology card.

Pfft, so I should just take your dogma?

I'll repeat... get real people.

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 01:41 PM
Here are the percentage wins for some of the guys on the list from yesterday. These are from the ATP website, clay only.

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/2928/claywins.png

habibko
05-19-2009, 02:04 PM
Here are the percentage wins for some of the guys on the list from yesterday. These are from the ATP website, clay only.

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/2928/claywins.png

this is a fair representation to me, anywhere from 5th to 10th among clay all time greats sounds reasonable to me.

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 02:09 PM
this is a fair representation to me, anywhere from 5th to 10th among clay all time greats sounds reasonable to me.

There are a multitude of ways to look at this, and none of them really yield solid results. You can really look at these numbers and see some interesting things, but come away with even more questions than answers. One thing that is obvious to me is Vilas was a stud. His time was at the height of my fantardness with Mac, and I sure did not remember Vilas playing over 700 clay court matches.

Action Jackson
05-19-2009, 02:26 PM
this is a fair representation to me, anywhere from 5th to 10th among clay all time greats sounds reasonable to me.

Why because it suits your view? It actually raises more questions and proves the point of not just looking at naked data without any application of it in any context.

Saddam got 99,9 percent of the votes in Iraqi elections.

marcRD
05-19-2009, 02:28 PM
Here are the percentage wins for some of the guys on the list from yesterday. These are from the ATP website, clay only.

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/2928/claywins.png

Interesting, cant really understand why Kuerten is ranked so low. Otherwise it seems spot on.

MisterQ
05-19-2009, 02:32 PM
Saddam got 99,9 percent of the votes in Iraqi elections.

Mug era.

habibko
05-19-2009, 02:35 PM
Why because it suits your view? It actually raises more questions and proves the point of not just looking at naked data without any application of it in any context.

Saddam got 99,9 percent of the votes in Iraqi elections.

what does this have to do with anything? they didn't actually vote.

as for my bias, I'm actually being generous by saying 5th-10th, as miura said before me, most of those would look like total mugs if they played Fed at the height of his powers.

I'm well aware of this being all hypothetical, that's why I settled with what sounded most reasonable to me, and the numbers of W/L asserts that, not to mention Fed is still playing so it's not the time for the final judgement.

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 02:45 PM
Interesting, cant really understand why Kuerten is ranked so low. Otherwise it seems spot on.

That one caught my eye too. I would have thought Gustavo played more clay matches than that too. I checked it three times and that's what the site shows. Overall he was 358-195 and the subtotals for surfaces does add up.

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 02:45 PM
Mug era.

He did face weak competition.

Action Jackson
05-19-2009, 02:46 PM
Mug era.

Too good.

Action Jackson
05-19-2009, 02:50 PM
what does this have to do with anything? they didn't actually vote.

as for my bias, I'm actually being generous by saying 5th-10th, as miura said before me, most of those would look like total mugs if they played Fed at the height of his powers.

I'm well aware of this being all hypothetical, that's why I settled with what sounded most reasonable to me, and the numbers of W/L asserts that, not to mention Fed is still playing so it's not the time for the final judgement.

Come on you are smart enough to get that Saddam reference, think about numbers alone and you are on that path.

As for your bias, if you failed to understand the Volandri and Roddick examples in the context that were used earlier, then you only consolidate my theory.

The W/L doesn't measure other important factors. As for being generous if you think he is anywhere near the top 5, then that is clownish and no the miura doesn't work at all.

habibko
05-19-2009, 02:55 PM
Come on you are smart enough to get that Saddam reference, think about numbers alone and you are on that path.

As for your bias, if you failed to understand the Volandri and Roddick examples in the context that were used earlier, then you only consolidate my theory.

The W/L doesn't measure other important factors. As for being generous if you think he is anywhere near the top 5, then that is clownish and no the miura doesn't work at all.

so having a different opinion than yours is clownish now?

Action Jackson
05-19-2009, 03:03 PM
so having a different opinion than yours is clownish now?

There are reasons Borg, Nadal, Lendl, Wilander and Kuerten are the big 5. Federer isn't anywhere near those 5, suggesting otherwise is clownish and I have suggested why this is.

Since you seem to want to compare eras without allowing for the differences in technology, the timeframe, automatically assuming that these guys would be playing the same game and wouldn't be as fit. If you are going to do it, then the conditions would have to be same. Lendl was the one that bought the high levels of fitness, Borg and Wilander's mental toughness on clay still transcends as does Kuerten's backhand. The same will happen when Federer is gone and others will be compared to him.

You still don't get it. What is it about the Volandri and Roddick example that you fail to understand?

Fed has great numbers on the clay, but what does it actually mean if you don't analyse the results in context?

Here is the difference I can actually talk about players I like or don't like in respect of their actual games, strengths and weaknesses.

oranges
05-19-2009, 03:08 PM
so having a different opinion than yours is clownish now?

No, but decidedly claiming he would own multiple RG winners and putting him above them is. If it weren't for Nadal doesn't cut it as an argument, sorry.

marcRD
05-19-2009, 03:19 PM
Fed has great numbers on the clay, but what does it actually mean if you don't analyse the results in context?


Analysing results can be very subjective. Specialy if your main hypothesis is that there are no great claycourt players in this era except Nadal.

I would rather watch the numbers, ofcourse taking some things into consideration.

marcRD
05-19-2009, 03:21 PM
No, but decidedly claiming he would own multiple RG winners and putting him above them is. If it weren't for Nadal doesn't cut it as an argument, sorry.

No, it doesnt. But it is a detail worth taking into consideration, that he played in the same era as the greatest claycourter of alltime.

habibko
05-19-2009, 03:22 PM
Since you seem to want to compare eras without allowing for the differences in technology, the timeframe, automatically assuming that these guys would be playing the same game and wouldn't be as fit. If you are going to do it, then the conditions would have to be same. Lendl was the one that bought the high levels of fitness, Borg and Wilander's mental toughness on clay still transcends as does Kuerten's backhand. The same will happen when Federer is gone and others will be compared to him.

ok but this is all hypothetical, your opinion is that the top 4 (besides Nadal) would be much better than Fed with those conditions, my opinion is that Fed would be much better, what makes your opinion a truth and other opinions clownish? there is no way to tell how the matchups would be like even in similar fitness and technology.

You still don't get it. What is it about the Volandri and Roddick example that you fail to understand?

Fed has great numbers on the clay, but what does it actually mean if you don't analyse the results in context?

Here is the difference I can actually talk about players I like or don't like in respect of their actual games, strengths and weaknesses.


see above.

oranges
05-19-2009, 03:35 PM
No, it doesnt. But it is a detail worth taking into consideration, that he played in the same era as the greatest claycourter of alltime.

Well, some would still put Borg ahead so even that part is debatable, but more to the point, why would that say anything about where Federer ranks compared to others. It explains why RG continues to elude him, nothing more and nothing less. Why do people expect everyone to buy into the theory that no one else from the past would do any better against Nadal. It's not evident and to be taken for granted at all, on the contrary.

Action Jackson
05-19-2009, 03:42 PM
ok but this is all hypothetical, your opinion is that the top 4 (besides Nadal) would be much better than Fed with those conditions, my opinion is that Fed would be much better, what makes your opinion a truth and other opinions clownish? there is no way to tell how the matchups would be like even in similar fitness and technology.

You can't leave out things in hypotheticals that don't suit your own view. This is what you did, hence I called it clownish, not the fact that you have a different opinion. Har-Tru and myself never agree on anything, but he makes posts that take everything into consideration through different evolutionary processes of the game, something you have failed to do.

So you are doing the classic oh! if Nadal wasn't around, then Fed would be a mutli RG champion. This is exactly the same as Roddick winning Wimbledon multiple times, if Fed wasn't around. What's the difference there isn't any.

I actually saw these players playing in the flesh on these respective surfaces. You can't see past the Fed love or admit that he benefits from the fact that players play hardcourt tennis on clay.

Why do you keep avoiding questions?

What you don't think champions would be champions in any era? This goes to all of them. If you don't think that, then there is no point in having this conversation.

Clowinish is applying selected criteria that suits your own view, yes this has happened. How is Federer being Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten, Bruguera consistently on clay? Yes, this means given that they are operating under the same circumstances

Action Jackson
05-19-2009, 03:45 PM
Well, some would still put Borg ahead so even that part is debatable, but more to the point, why would that say anything about where Federer ranks compared to others. It explains why RG continues to elude him, nothing more and nothing less. Why do people expect everyone to buy into the theory that no one else from the past would do any better against Nadal. It's not evident and to be taken for granted at all, on the contrary.

It's a lack of perspective to make Federer look better than he actually is. Thankfully Nadal is around at the moment, because if Fed was a multiple RG champion, then that would raise a lot more questions.

habibko
05-19-2009, 03:49 PM
I've stated my opinion from the beginning, and that is Federer is among the all time greats even on clay, because his game translated well on clay and he beat many clay court specialists convincingly in his era, and I've used that W/L statistic to show that it's quite reasonable to say Fed ranks in the 5th-10th range, I don't need to answer specific hypothetical questions or make analytical posts like Har-Tru, because you can never know for sure.

and yes results aren't a way to compare how players in different eras will fare against each other, I've gone through this in the past and used the Davydenko-Wilander example, this is a valid point.

marcRD
05-19-2009, 03:52 PM
Well, some would still put Borg ahead so even that part is debatable, but more to the point, why would that say anything about where Federer ranks compared to others. It explains why RG continues to elude him, nothing more and nothing less. Why do people expect everyone to buy into the theory that no one else from the past would do any better against Nadal. It's not evident and to be taken for granted at all, on the contrary.

I never said that, I wouldnt ever say anything like that.

On the contrary Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer and I certanly think Borg and Kuerten would do alot better against Nadal

Manon
05-19-2009, 04:01 PM
There are reasons Borg, Nadal, Lendl, Wilander and Kuerten are the big 5. Federer isn't anywhere near those 5.

I agree with ^^^. Moya took one title on RG and he's not one of the best. Good one, better than that...just like Federer (bless (t)his tennis period).

oranges
05-19-2009, 04:26 PM
I never said that, I wouldnt ever say anything like that.

On the contrary Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer and I certanly think Borg and Kuerten would do alot better against Nadal

I didn't mean you in particular, but rather that a general impression whenever "if it weren't for Nadal" argument is invoked is that A) Federer would necessarily have multiple RG titles in another era B) players who won RG would necessarily fail to do so with Nadal around C) is self-evident from the first two, Federer would own each and every one of them. Several posters actually went to say something to that effect outright.

Action Jackson
05-19-2009, 04:34 PM
I agree with ^^^. Moya took one title on RG and he's not one of the best. Good one, better than that...just like Federer (bless (t)his tennis period).

We have to be honest here. Federer is no claycourt clown far from it, but my main problem is what primadonna asked me earlier about the hype and just measuring on numbers without applying anything to it.

Then what oranges is saying is right to the point. No Nadal, then Fed would be killing everyone and anyone else who was a champ on clay is just fodder.

Sapeod
05-19-2009, 04:47 PM
Federer is one of the best clay courters. Nadal is just a better one and has been winning in clay throughout Fed's career. Before that there was Ferrero and Coria and Gaudio.

Commander Data
05-19-2009, 04:55 PM
Come on you are smart enough to get that Saddam reference, think about numbers alone and you are on that path.



That argument does not work. Numbers stand for something, which may or may not be relevant for the question at hand. You can't put foreward an example A were numbers mean shit and argue that, thus, in a completly different example B numbers again mean shit.

habibko
05-19-2009, 04:56 PM
for those who were saying Fed it the best clay courter with no RG title, or that FO is the real criterion for clay greatness, does that mean players like Moya, Gaudio and Agassi are better clay courters than Federer? get real people.

Manon
05-19-2009, 04:59 PM
We have to be honest here. Federer is no claycourt clown far from it...

It's ok, Federer is exellent, one of the great claycouters but I don't think he's one of the best (talking about...i.e. 5 of them). In fact what are we talking about, about best 10, 20, simply the best, we have to consider when certain player played...it is so subjective. In those situations I like to take stat. That's why I agreed with you.

Action Jackson
05-19-2009, 05:03 PM
That argument does not work. Numbers stand for something, which may or may not be relevant for the question at hand. You can't put foreward an example A were numbers mean shit and argue that, thus, in a completly different example B numbers again mean shit.

Actually the argument works very clearly, unless you practice selective reading or judgment.

Example : As philoscarf produced some interesting data on breaks of serve per surface and used them for the 3 different TMS events Monte Carlo, Rome and Hamburg. The fact that Monte Carlo had the most breaks of serve, not he was saying this, but others who interpret that data that it was the slowest surface of the three, when it's clearly Hamburg, but the important variables, the roof at Hamburg, the climatic conditions and the amount of clay in Hamburg is cooler and has more topsurface than Monte Carlo, therefore leading a slower surface, were not measured, because they can't be measured numerically, a bean counter just believes the numbers.

In other words numbers are useful, but it counts for nowt unless they are applied taking all important things into consideration.

Manon
05-19-2009, 05:04 PM
for those who were saying Fed it the best clay courter with no RG title, or that FO is the real criterion for clay greatness, does that mean players like Moya, Gaudio and Agassi are better clay courters than Federer? get real people.

Habib friend, leave Moya. My (huge) mistake. But you can't deny RG importancy during the (some player) whole career.

Action Jackson
05-19-2009, 05:04 PM
for those who were saying Fed it the best clay courter with no RG title, or that FO is the real criterion for clay greatness, does that mean players like Moya, Gaudio and Agassi are better clay courters than Federer? get real people.

Ask that question to marc.

habibko
05-19-2009, 05:12 PM
Habib friend, leave Moya. My (huge) mistake. But you can't deny RG importancy during the (some player) whole career.

I didn't say RG title isn't important Misha, but a player with one RG title isn't automatically better than every single player who never won RG, and my example is clear in that regard.

propi
05-19-2009, 05:27 PM
for those who were saying Fed it the best clay courter with no RG title, or that FO is the real criterion for clay greatness, does that mean players like Moya, Gaudio and Agassi are better clay courters than Federer? get real people.

Well, actually Moyŕ and Gaudio managed to win RG by beating the main favourites for the title in their paths... when Moyá won the HUGE favourite was Marcelo Ríosand maybe Corretja if I'm not mistaken, he beat in 1/4 and in the final.
Gaudio stopped Coria, who was the only favourite that year. Agassi, well, he had all the luck Roger has lacked until now, but Medveded's clay pedigree is amazing, possibly even bigger than Al Costa, for example.

Roger has not only failed to deliver such a performance, but he's suffered one of the biggest defeats ever in a GS final only comparable to these in WTA Justine and Graf used to deliver vs. Ivanovic and Zvereva (:fiery: why, Natacha, why...) and in ATP I can only think in Korda and Roger himself beating Ríos and Hewitt in Aus and Us Opens.

Commander Data
05-19-2009, 05:32 PM
Actually the argument works very clearly, unless you practice selective reading or judgment.

Example : As philoscarf produced some interesting data on breaks of serve per surface and used them for the 3 different TMS events Monte Carlo, Rome and Hamburg. The fact that Monte Carlo had the most breaks of serve, not he was saying this, but others who interpret that data that it was the slowest surface of the three, when it's clearly Hamburg, but the important variables, the roof at Hamburg, the climatic conditions and the amount of clay in Hamburg is cooler and has more topsurface than Monte Carlo, therefore leading a slower surface, were not measured, because they can't be measured numerically, a bean counter just believes the numbers.

In other words numbers are useful, but it counts for nowt unless they are applied taking all important things into consideration.

Yes sure. Numbers don't always tell the whole story, well thats not rocket science. You know what? Words, pictures, titles etc. don't tell the whole story either, sometimes. I don't argue against that.


Just that the Saddam example is a weak choice to illustrate that (trivial) fact, because there the problem is that the number is actually wrong. Everybody knows that not 99.5 % voted for Saddam. While here, i guess the numbers are correct (unless somebody hacked the atp-site) so here we have another situation. numbers are correct but it is debatable what part of the story they tell and what part is missing, or which numbers would be best suited

:wavey:

Action Jackson
05-19-2009, 05:36 PM
Yes sure. Numbers don't always tell the whole story, well thats not rocket science. You know what? Words, pictures, titles etc. don't tell the whole story either, sometimes. I don't argue against that.

Just that the Saddam example is a weak choice to illustrate that (trivial) fact, because there the problem is that the number is actually wrong. Everybody knows that not 99.5 % voted for Saddam. While here, i guess the numbers are correct (unless somebody hacked the atp-site) so here we have another situation. numbers are correct but it is debatable what part of the story they tell and what part is missing, or which numbers would be best suited

:wavey:

The Saddam example was very easy, the numbers are there and this what allegedly voted for him. But how do you apply that? It depends on your viewpoint.

Just like those other numbers, they are there right in front you. It just depends on what perspective you chose to view it or what is being taken in and what has selectively been left out.

GugaF1
05-19-2009, 05:55 PM
Reading this thread is a good mind entertainment.

marcRD
05-19-2009, 06:00 PM
Ask that question to marc.

I have a very balanced point of view on the value of Roland Garros compared to other tournaments. A Roland Garros title should be worth 4-5 times a master series title and 2-3 times more than beeing runner up. I dont think a Roland Garros title should be worth infinite more than anything else on clay as some people here seems to belive. I value Corretjas 2 runner ups+semifinal+master series titles more than Gaudio's fluke RG title. I value Federer's 3 runner ups, 11 master series finals and 5 master series titles as more than lets say Moya's RG title and 3 master series finals.

When I rank the greats on any surface I want to back it up with numbers not with my opinion, anyone can have an opinion but I try to back it up with facts and if people want to value numbers differently I am glad to discuss the issue with them. Ofcourse some numbers and facts dont tell everything, but you cant meassure greatness in any other way than achievment, it just becomes a game where everybody wants to tell what they think about it. If you have nothing to back up what you are saying than it is just an opinion and nothing which people who think differently will accept.

I prob value RG alot more than you, some people here value it a RG title infinitely more important than anything else, I am not one of them.

One clear example of when numbers dont tell everything is when you compare Agassi with Muster on clay. Agassi played RG alot better and have greater results there and didnt care about anything else on clay, he really didnt care about Rome or Monte Carlo, rarely even played there. So, I leave it open for debate who is greater on clay between them because you barely can compare them in numbers.

Action Jackson
05-19-2009, 06:01 PM
Reading this thread is a good mind entertainment.

Bit like a Scientology debate.

prima donna
05-20-2009, 02:32 AM
Laver Rosewall - Roland Garros 1969 - 3rd set p3
We3Hf9C-PP8&

gulzhan
05-20-2009, 03:24 AM
Reading this thread is a good mind entertainment.

:lol:

marcRD
05-20-2009, 11:02 AM
Then again most didn't realise Laver had a single hand backhand and that had topspin. Of course he didn't play grass tennis on clay, nor did he hit mass moonballs either.


Please, explain how Laver did not play grasscourt tennis on clay while Federer plays hardcourt tennis on clay, please explain how Laver adjusted more to the clay surface than Federer.

Here is another video, so all of you can watch and decide for yourself if this looks like classical clay tennis:

LCsIEx7ykDY

MacTheKnife
05-20-2009, 01:29 PM
Please, explain how Laver did not play grasscourt tennis on clay while Federer plays hardcourt tennis on clay, please explain how Laver adjusted more to the clay surface than Federer.

Here is another video, so all of you can watch and decide for yourself if this looks like classical clay tennis:

LCsIEx7ykDY

By today's standards, Laver played grass court tennis on clay. By the standards in his day, he did not. In the 60s, those guys came in on virtually every point on grass, and reduced that considerably when they were on clay. But if you look at them playing on clay now, you think holy crap these guys came in all the time. Here is Laver on grass the same year, just for a comparison. It's all in perspective of what the styles of play were/are at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

Har-Tru
05-20-2009, 01:36 PM
Madrid wasn't even clay then :haha:

It was.

Action Jackson
05-20-2009, 01:45 PM
It was.

It was just an IS event then. I remember Edberg playing it a few times and Muster and Bruguera being in the final there one year.

Action Jackson
05-20-2009, 01:47 PM
By today's standards, Laver played grass court tennis on clay. By the standards in his day, he did not. In the 60s, those guys came in on virtually every point on grass, and reduced that considerably when they were on clay. But if you look at them playing on clay now, you think holy crap these guys came in all the time. Here is Laver on grass the same year, just for a comparison. It's all in perspective of what the styles of play were/are at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

Hmmm, perspective, even more expensive than truffle oil.

Har-Tru
05-20-2009, 01:51 PM
It was just an IS event then. I remember Edberg playing it a few times and Muster and Bruguera being in the final there one year.

Yeah of course, it was a much weaker tourney than it is now. It wasn't even the biggest tourney in Spain (the way it should be now). I believe it was considered to be slightly more important in the early 70s than in the early 90s though, but don't quote me on that.

Har-Tru
05-20-2009, 01:52 PM
By today's standards, Laver played grass court tennis on clay. By the standards in his day, he did not. In the 60s, those guys came in on virtually every point on grass, and reduced that considerably when they were on clay. But if you look at them playing on clay now, you think holy crap these guys came in all the time. Here is Laver on grass the same year, just for a comparison. It's all in perspective of what the styles of play were/are at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

Thanks for saving me typing time. :wavey:

marcRD
05-20-2009, 01:55 PM
By today's standards, Laver played grass court tennis on clay. By the standards in his day, he did not. In the 60s, those guys came in on virtually every point on grass, and reduced that considerably when they were on clay. But if you look at them playing on clay now, you think holy crap these guys came in all the time. Here is Laver on grass the same year, just for a comparison. It's all in perspective of what the styles of play were/are at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

I do not doubt that he came in less on clay than on grass (that is quite obvious). But it is not only him coming in, look at the constant backhand slice duels between them, look at the short rallies. Take a look some years later Borg playing Vilas or Lendl and the differense of style is obvious to anyone, with virtually the same technology.

So is Laver excused for playing almost grasscourt tennis on clay because "everyone in his era did so" while this Federer and Djokovic in this era era is condemned for playing hardcourt tennis on clay like everybody else in this era?

I call that double standards. I also think Federer atleast plays more what I call traditional claycourt tennis than Laver did in the 60s. Federer slides better, uses the dropshot quite often, plays longer rallies, his movement is better and he hits a forehand with alot of topspin and there are many more reasons why I wouldnt call Federers game on clay as "hardcourt on clay".

MacTheKnife
05-20-2009, 02:08 PM
I do not doubt that he came in less on clay than on grass (that is quite obvious). But it is not only him coming in, look at the constant backhand slice duels between them, look at the short rallies. Take a look some years later Borg playing Vilas or Lendl and the differense of style is obvious to anyone, with virtually the same technology.

So is Laver excused for playing almost grasscourt tennis on clay because "everyone in his era did so" while this Federer and Djokovic in this era era is condemned for playing hardcourt tennis on clay like everybody else in this era?

I call that double standards. I also think Federer atleast plays more what I call traditional claycourt tennis than Laver did in the 60s. Federer slides better, uses the dropshot quite often, plays longer rallies, his movement is better and he hits a forehand with alot of topspin and there are many more reasons why I wouldnt call Federers game on clay as "hardcourt on clay".

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. And you have not see me condemn any player for their style of play at the time. But it is my belief that the amount of adjustments required from the different surfaces has reduced considerably over the years. This is not any players fault as in each era, players have played and adjusted to the hand they are dealt. Whether it be surfaces, technology, training, or ball changes, and the list could go on and on. These guys adjusted accordingly and all became champions of their days. I heard Laver say one day in an interview, "all you can ask of a guy is to be the best in his era, beyond that it's all guesswork".

Har-Tru
05-20-2009, 02:11 PM
I do not doubt that he came in less on clay than on grass (that is quite obvious). But it is not only him coming in, look at the constant backhand slice duels between them, look at the short rallies. Take a look some years later Borg playing Vilas or Lendl and the differense of style is obvious to anyone, with virtually the same technology.

It's not only about technology. It's style, trend. The 60s were the heyday of S&V and short rallies. Serving and staying on the baseline was seen as very conservative at the time. In that vid you can see sometimes players hitting 1st serves and then staying back. That was unthinkable on grass.

So is Laver excused for playing almost grasscourt tennis on clay because "everyone in his era did so" while this Federer and Djokovic in this era era is condemned for playing hardcourt tennis on clay like everybody else in this era? I call that double standards.

You have a point. Times change. Players (and I mean players as a whole now) adjust, and that's why clay tennis changed in the 70s as you said. But again, you can't blame Laver or Rosewall for going with the current. They played the clay tennis of their time, and were extremely successful. Going "oh, but there was a better way of playing" is a naive argument in my view. I agree people are sometimes too hard on Fed and other players right now accusing them of not playing proper clay tennis, but they do have a point. After all, Laver and Rosewall shared the title of best clay courter in the world for more than 10 years, while Fed and co cannot say the same.

I also think Federer atleast plays more what I call traditional claycourt tennis than Laver did in the 60s. Federer slides better, uses the dropshot quite often, plays longer rallies, his movement is better and he hits a forehand with alot of topspin and there are many more reasons why I wouldnt call Federers game on clay as "hardcourt on clay".

I'm curious. What do you call "traditional clay court tennis"?

Action Jackson
05-20-2009, 02:19 PM
Yeah of course, it was a much weaker tourney than it is now. It wasn't even the biggest tourney in Spain (the way it should be now). I believe it was considered to be slightly more important in the early 70s than in the early 90s though, but don't quote me on that.

Well it's not the biggest event now, just cause Don Tiriac says so and gives it a fancy title. But Barcelona is the place of Spanish tennis history, which grew through, whereas Madrid is like the kid with something to prove.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. And you have not see me condemn any player for their style of play at the time. But it is my belief that the amount of adjustments required from the different surfaces has reduced considerably over the years. This is not any players fault as in each era, players have played and adjusted to the hand they are dealt. Whether it be surfaces, technology, training, or ball changes, and the list could go on and on. These guys adjusted accordingly and all became champions of their days. I heard Laver say one day in an interview, "all you can ask of a guy is to be the best in his era, beyond that it's all guesswork".

The adjustments have lessened, but that is not a surprise, when the faster surfaces aren't as quick. For example as a tennis fan, wouldn't you love to see Nadal have the challenge of playing on very fast indoor courts with low bounce? Naturally, I don't want to see this all the time, but there is a lack of diversity at the moment, it could change in the future.

This is the key, adjusting to the current time that they live in. The problem I have is people with such short sightedness and a lack of perspective and it's like would Nadal play the same way with a wooden racquet, all guesswork, he might not play the same way, but he would still have the desire, work ethic and mental strength.

Yet, the way Federer is overrated on clay, while disparaging other legends of the game.

Action Jackson
05-20-2009, 02:26 PM
It's not only about technology. It's style, trend. The 60s were the heyday of S&V and short rallies. Serving and staying on the baseline was seen as very conservative at the time. In that vid you can see sometimes players hitting 1st serves and then staying back. That was unthinkable on grass.

Borg and Connors were the early guys who served and stayed back on the grass and that was atypical.

As they say each generation has its own disease and that applies to sporting trends.

I'm curious. What do you call "traditional clay court tennis"?

There are many ways to play this game and it goes for clay as well. Look at Noah, here was a man that attacked playing on clay, had some clownish groundies, but cat like movement around the net and very comfortable with his movement.

It's not just about moonballs and heavy topspin, the subtle changes of pace and spin are part of it. The speed endurance and tactical nous that is needed to play well on this surface.

marcRD
05-20-2009, 02:28 PM
It's not only about technology. It's style, trend. The 60s were the heyday of S&V and short rallies. Serving and staying on the baseline was seen as very conservative at the time. In that vid you can see sometimes players hitting 1st serves and then staying back. That was unthinkable on grass.

Yes, I agree. There was an innovation in the 70s which started with Connors and went on to Borg which involved twohanded backhands and alot more use of topspin and long rallies. I dont think Laver or Rosewall would survive in the 70s (on clay), but that is merely my subjective opinion. They did the best they could in their eras and I judge players by achievment and not by subjective reasoning about how players would do in other eras.




I'm curious. What do you call "traditional clay court tennis"?

Well, this is ofcourse difficult to explain. Someone who takes advantage of the enviroment on a claycourt is someone who plays claycourt tennis to me. One example, claycourts slow down the ball, so dropshots are much more effective on clay and a traditional claycourter should be able to make dropshots from both his forehand and backhand. Federer has been slow on adapting to hit more dropshots, in fact every year I see him using the dropshot a little more frequently than the year before.

Another example, topspin is very effective on clay, it is safe and clay makes it jump very high while the slice just isnt as effective on clay as other surfaces. A traditional claycourter needs to be able to slide to his advantage while defending or he will just slide after he hits the ball and lose ground and it will actually be a disadvantage for the player who cant use the slide.

As the surface is slow, you cant simply hit throught your opponents with force, you need to use angles and move them around the court to find open spaces. You need to also have a tactical mind to know how to outplay your opponents.

Going to the net could also be important on clay as sometimes it is the most simple way to finish points on clay, if your opponent just is a great defensive player. Take Muster or Coria, going to the net and their great defensive skills are greatly reduced. Against Nadal this doesnt work because he has the greatest passing shots this sport has ever seen.

Federer gets a check on everything required to be great on Clay except his backhand which is a little too dependent on the slice. Often people think Nadal hiting the ball high up on Federers backhand is what makes this matchup so terrible for Federer, but they are very wrong, the real problem is that Federer cant use the slice to get out of those uncomfortable positions. Against almost any other player in the history of the sport he would be allowed to use the slice to get out of trouble, but Federer cant even use the slice on grass against Nadal.

Also, note that a player might not play traditional claycourt tennis but still be greater than someone playing traditional claycourt tennis. I think Sampras is greater on clay than Mantillas, as mentioned in another thread. He is such a great tennis player that even clay slowing him down in every aspect he still is greater than a specialist on the surface.

Clay doesnt slow Federer or Djokovic down (like lets say it does to Murray), they are still great players on clay, too bad for them is that it greatly improves Nadal's game.

marcRD
05-20-2009, 03:06 PM
Nadal is just THE claycourt player to me, but lets take another example of someone who plays traditional claycourt tennis in completely different way. Guga Kuerten is one of my favorite players alltime. He could create great angles with his backhand and then finish points with the greatest backhand down the line of all time, he loved to play drop shots and could push opponents far down behind the baseline with both his forehand and backhand. He played with alot of topspin and was still very aggresive. He had a great hold game, where he could take advantage of a truly great 1st serve and then take control of rallies from there on. He could go to the net and finish points, his stop volleys where actually top class and he had great touch.

He also had a weakness and that was his defense and movement which were truly bad. He just took control of points on clay and never let other players push him around. As mentioned you dont need to play moonballs on clay and Kuerten is a great example of how great aggresive baseliners can do on clay.

On other surfaces Kuerten was limited because of his long swings and he had problems returning against big servers.

groundstroke
05-20-2009, 03:31 PM
AxGTrmTI36o

Some excellent analysis on how Federer beat Nadal in the recent match.

*How Federer hit a very, very effective backhand
*How Nadal lost the match all because of just one thing
*How Federer used some tactics to surprise Nadal
*What this means for the upcoming Roland Garros

Make sure you watch it in HD, I think he's very bold with his prediction.

Action Jackson
05-20-2009, 03:42 PM
groundstroke, bandwagoning Federer again, hehe.

marcRD
05-20-2009, 03:59 PM
AxGTrmTI36o

Some excellent analysis on how Federer beat Nadal in the recent match.

*How Federer hit a very, very effective backhand
*How Nadal lost the match all because of just one thing
*How Federer used some tactics to surprise Nadal
*What this means for the upcoming Roland Garros

Make sure you watch it in HD, I think he's very bold with his prediction.

He is spot on that Federer did everything right to beat a tired Nadal on fast clay. He just forgot it is different to play Nadal when he is 100% on slow clay in Roland Garros.

I would be surprised if Federer even took a set from Nadal.

Har-Tru
05-20-2009, 05:38 PM
Well, this is ofcourse difficult to explain. Someone who takes advantage of the enviroment on a claycourt is someone who plays claycourt tennis to me. One example, claycourts slow down the ball, so dropshots are much more effective on clay and a traditional claycourter should be able to make dropshots from both his forehand and backhand. Federer has been slow on adapting to hit more dropshots, in fact every year I see him using the dropshot a little more frequently than the year before.

Another example, topspin is very effective on clay, it is safe and clay makes it jump very high while the slice just isnt as effective on clay as other surfaces. A traditional claycourter needs to be able to slide to his advantage while defending or he will just slide after he hits the ball and lose ground and it will actually be a disadvantage for the player who cant use the slide.

As the surface is slow, you cant simply hit throught your opponents with force, you need to use angles and move them around the court to find open spaces. You need to also have a tactical mind to know how to outplay your opponents.

Going to the net could also be important on clay as sometimes it is the most simple way to finish points on clay, if your opponent just is a great defensive player. Take Muster or Coria, going to the net and their great defensive skills are greatly reduced. Against Nadal this doesnt work because he has the greatest passing shots this sport has ever seen.

Federer gets a check on everything required to be great on Clay except his backhand which is a little too dependent on the slice. Often people think Nadal hiting the ball high up on Federers backhand is what makes this matchup so terrible for Federer, but they are very wrong, the real problem is that Federer cant use the slice to get out of those uncomfortable positions. Against almost any other player in the history of the sport he would be allowed to use the slice to get out of trouble, but Federer cant even use the slice on grass against Nadal.

Also, note that a player might not play traditional claycourt tennis but still be greater than someone playing traditional claycourt tennis. I think Sampras is greater on clay than Mantillas, as mentioned in another thread. He is such a great tennis player that even clay slowing him down in every aspect he still is greater than a specialist on the surface.

Clay doesnt slow Federer or Djokovic down (like lets say it does to Murray), they are still great players on clay, too bad for them is that it greatly improves Nadal's game.

Excellent. Max score. :yeah:

The thing about tennis surfaces and how they suit certain players is very tricky indeed, and it throws many into false assumptions very easily, like "player A must be good on grass because he serves well" or "player B must be good on clay because he loves playing from the baseline".

Take Rosewall for example. Seeing his game and Laver's, one would think that Laver would own him big time on the fast indoor wood surfaces of the 60s and early 70s pro circuit, but actually Rosewall holds a favorable h2h there. On clay, however, it is only fair to presume that Laver would stand no chance against Rosewall's baseline game, but actually their matches were normally very close, and they shared the wins almost 50-50. Reason? Chiefly, in my opinion, Rosewall's famous sliced backhand: absolutely deadly on indoor wood, not so effective on clay.

Serenidad
05-20-2009, 05:44 PM
I wouldn't specifically say a great clay courter, but rather a great player who had a very good game that worked on all surfaces. Apart from Nadal, most of the guys he faces on clay are playing the same game they would on any other surface, which is usually inferior to his own.

Agreed. He has a game that works on all surfaces not necessarily clay. The reason he is good on clay is primarily in his movement and footwork as well.

Also agreed. There aren't many top players who can play on clay. Djokovic is just now coming into his own. Who knows if Murray will ever figure out the surface. Del Potro plays the same everywhere. Tsonga isn't translating to clay. Verdasco is a head case. Simon sucks on clay. Roddick sucks everywhere, etc.

When he was having some quality competition even in '04 he lost Rome and followed that up with an RG loss to a past his peak Kuerten. Not to mention Hewitt was getting to the SFs of TMS then (Hamburg).

This is definitely one of the weakest clay times outside of Nadal. He's still good on the surface but I think his stats are inflated.

Har-Tru
05-20-2009, 05:45 PM
Well it's not the biggest event now, just cause Don Tiriac says so and gives it a fancy title. But Barcelona is the place of Spanish tennis history, which grew through, whereas Madrid is like the kid with something to prove.

Don't get me started on this or I'll get my arse banned.


The adjustments have lessened, but that is not a surprise, when the faster surfaces aren't as quick. For example as a tennis fan, wouldn't you love to see Nadal have the challenge of playing on very fast indoor courts with low bounce? Naturally, I don't want to see this all the time, but there is a lack of diversity at the moment, it could change in the future.

It's a mess right now. I can't believe I miss carpet, I wasn't a big fan of fast indoor tennis at the time, but like many people I don't see why it had to be executed. Same with this insane stuff like in Madrid with clay that plays like everything and nothing at the same time, but definitely not like clay.

There are many ways to play this game and it goes for clay as well. Look at Noah, here was a man that attacked playing on clay, had some clownish groundies, but cat like movement around the net and very comfortable with his movement.

It's not just about moonballs and heavy topspin, the subtle changes of pace and spin are part of it. The speed endurance and tactical nous that is needed to play well on this surface.

To think if Johnny Mac hadn't sent his 1st serve on vacation in the third set of the 1984 final we would have had two clearly offensive players winning the French in two consecutive years...

Nadal is just THE claycourt player to me, but lets take another example of someone who plays traditional claycourt tennis in completely different way. Guga Kuerten is one of my favorite players alltime. He could create great angles with his backhand and then finish points with the greatest backhand down the line of all time, he loved to play drop shots and could push opponents far down behind the baseline with both his forehand and backhand. He played with alot of topspin and was still very aggresive. He had a great hold game, where he could take advantage of a truly great 1st serve and then take control of rallies from there on. He could go to the net and finish points, his stop volleys where actually top class and he had great touch.

He also had a weakness and that was his defense and movement which were truly bad. He just took control of points on clay and never let other players push him around. As mentioned you dont need to play moonballs on clay and Kuerten is a great example of how great aggresive baseliners can do on clay.

On other surfaces Kuerten was limited because of his long swings and he had problems returning against big servers.

I'm agreeing too much with you today. I think it might be time to redirect this thread back to Saddam Hussein.

MacTheKnife
05-20-2009, 05:50 PM
In summary, we are arriving at what we really all knew at the beginning of the thread. This sport always has been and always will be about individual match ups. That's a pretty simplistic view, but when you boil it all down, that's the bottom line.

Action Jackson
05-20-2009, 05:53 PM
It's a mess right now. I can't believe I miss carpet, I wasn't a big fan of fast indoor tennis at the time, but like many people I don't see why it had to be executed. Same with this insane stuff like in Madrid with clay that plays like everything and nothing at the same time, but definitely not like clay.

As for the carpet, well I didn't like it then, but it served a purpose at that time and focused on a different set of skills required in the game, which aren't as apparent now. It's like give with one hand and take with the other.

To think if Johnny Mac hadn't sent his 1st serve on vacation in the third set of the 1984 final we would have had two clearly offensive players winning the French in two consecutive years...

Well the famous what if scenario. What if Borg didn't stop playing when he did or the rain stayed away in 99. These things are meant to be.

As for the slice thing with Federer, he still had a slice backhand in Rome when he lost to Mantilla and to Horna at RG.:)

Action Jackson
05-20-2009, 05:56 PM
In summary, we are arriving at what we really all knew at the beginning of the thread. This sport always has been and always will be about individual match ups. That's a pretty simplistic view, but when you boil it all down, that's the bottom line.

Of course that is the most important thing.

DrJules
05-20-2009, 08:12 PM
Possibly the best never to win the French Open.

marcRD
05-20-2009, 09:38 PM
As for the slice thing with Federer, he still had a slice backhand in Rome when he lost to Mantilla and to Horna at RG.:)

Dont forget he lost to Philippoussis on his favorite clay tournament Hamburg. One very important thing was missing for Federer the whole year 2003 and that was consistency.

Would Federer lose to Philippoussis, Mantilla or Horna on clay today? My personal opinion is that he wouldnt.

marcRD
05-21-2009, 12:25 AM
Excellent. Max score. :yeah:

The thing about tennis surfaces and how they suit certain players is very tricky indeed, and it throws many into false assumptions very easily, like "player A must be good on grass because he serves well" or "player B must be good on clay because he loves playing from the baseline".

Take Rosewall for example. Seeing his game and Laver's, one would think that Laver would own him big time on the fast indoor wood surfaces of the 60s and early 70s pro circuit, but actually Rosewall holds a favorable h2h there. On clay, however, it is only fair to presume that Laver would stand no chance against Rosewall's baseline game, but actually their matches were normally very close, and they shared the wins almost 50-50. Reason? Chiefly, in my opinion, Rosewall's famous sliced backhand: absolutely deadly on indoor wood, not so effective on clay.

Thank you very much. Yes, simplifying the game players have to 1, 2 or 3 qualities is just something you see all the time. Like Kuerten, why would he not be as good on hardcourt as on clay? Great serve, aggresive baseliner, good volleys? His weakness was his movement...

Seems more like a hardcourt player than a claycourt player, however as I said earlier, Kuerten had this very long swing on his backhand and used to stand 10 feet behind the baseline to return serves on hardcourts. On clay he got time to swing freely with his raquet and most often didnt have to face big servers.

Rosewall's backhand was just not suited to clay and I find it surprising that he had his best results on clay. I guess his great movement and touch made up for whatever weakness he had on the surface much like Kuerten could make up for his weak movement with smart aggresive tennis based alot on his serve (surprisingly when we speak about clay).

So simple rules doesnt work on any surface, Nadal with his avarage serve, slice and volleys is a great grass court player (even if you want to call it slower grass), his spins just slide away from opponents and his passing shots scare anyone to come to the net even on grass and his forehands loves to swing at very low height. He just takes away the slice, the volleys and so much more from the typical grasscourt player.

Chloe le Bopper
05-21-2009, 02:38 AM
It's my personal opinion. I watched hours of footage of all the players mentioned above and I really can't see any of them outplaying Roger.

Oh, well then. Thread over.

Mimi
05-21-2009, 03:22 AM
not knowledgeable to judge whether he is one of the best, but just based on results, he is, runner up for FO 3 times, and won Hamburg and some clay titles too :angel:

Saxoner
05-21-2009, 05:18 AM
It's hard to imagine Roger Federer beating Nadal at Roland Garros. Personally, I don't think it'll happen. If Roger wins the FO, it won't be Nadal in the final along his side, but someone else.

As impressive as his victory was last week, Nadal's level of play during a clay court Master's series is significantly less than his performance at Roland Garros.

We will see the outcome soon this year, nevertheless.

marcRD
05-21-2009, 11:20 AM
It's hard to imagine Roger Federer beating Nadal at Roland Garros. Personally, I don't think it'll happen. If Roger wins the FO, it won't be Nadal in the final along his side, but someone else.

As impressive as his victory was last week, Nadal's level of play during a clay court Master's series is significantly less than his performance at Roland Garros.

We will see the outcome soon this year, nevertheless.

He cant, it just wouldnt make any sense. 2005-2007 he had a minor chanse of causing an upset but since 2008 Nadal found himself playing at yet another level while Federer just lost a step and since then I dont think the gap between them will ever get smaller. I would be happy if Federer found a way to beat Nadal on grass and hardcourt, he is a horrible matchup for Federer so just beating Nadal on any surface would be good enought for me.

I have some hope that Djokovic might produce something special against Nadal on a day he is playing perfect tennis, I know a final between Federer and Djokovic would be close and exciting, but this may just be wishful thinking from my part.

Rafa = Fed Killa
05-21-2009, 12:33 PM
0 RG = not of the clay GOATS

:wavey:

Acer
05-21-2009, 12:35 PM
Meaning Gaudio is one of the clay GOATS?

lol

MacTheKnife
05-21-2009, 01:01 PM
He cant, it just wouldnt make any sense. 2005-2007 he had a minor chanse of causing an upset but since 2008 Nadal found himself playing at yet another level while Federer just lost a step and since then I dont think the gap between them will ever get smaller. I would be happy if Federer found a way to beat Nadal on grass and hardcourt, he is a horrible matchup for Federer so just beating Nadal on any surface would be good enought for me.

I have some hope that Djokovic might produce something special against Nadal on a day he is playing perfect tennis, I know a final between Federer and Djokovic would be close and exciting, but this may just be wishful thinking from my part.

I don't think it's wishful thinking at all. You've been following this sport for a while. Anything can happen. Federer changed a lot of things in his approach in Madrid, and imo, some of that will work at RG. (not all, but some)
I think Djok is the real question in this event. How does he perform in a five setter, how will he respond to last week's loss, where will he land in the draw, and most importantly, can he be consistent enough to play at a level high enough to knock off possibly 3 of the top 10 in a row in best of 5. The Rome debacle was Djok's fisrt clay win over Federer, but again, best of 3. They have never played a 5 set clay match.
The weather, at least for week one is favorable for those liking heavy slow conditions. Looks like high 60s and light rain a couple of days, mostly or partly cloudy for the rest of the week..
Still ya gotta think Nadal BIG fav, but I'd still give Fed the edge to get to the final "again".

Action Jackson
05-21-2009, 01:03 PM
Meaning Gaudio is one of the clay GOATS?

lol

Hahaha.

groundstroke
05-21-2009, 02:49 PM
Possibly the best never to win the French Open.
At least he hasn't had his heart broken like Coria did, he really should have won the French Open in 2004.

Matt01
05-21-2009, 06:56 PM
Meaning Gaudio is one of the clay GOATS?

lol


Hewitt = Clay Mug.

marcRD
06-07-2009, 04:02 PM
Well, it gets complicated if you count in Rosewall and Laver, really complicated. So I will only count those who made their whole career during the open era. I would have something like:

1.Nadal
2.Borg
3.Wilander
4.Kuerten
5.Lendl
6.Vilas
7.Bruguera
8.Courier
9.Federer
10.Ferrero
11-15.(Nastase, Kodes, Agassi, Muster, Panatta)

Let me update my list (quantum leap for Roger):

1.Nadal
2.Borg
3.Lendl
4.Wilander
5.Kuerten
6.Federer
7.Vilas
8.Bruguera
9.Courier
10.Ferrero
11-15.(Nastase, Kodes, Agassi, Muster, Panatta)

Federer with 1 RG and 3 RG finals+RG SF, 5 atp master series, 6 master series finals and at the same era of a clay alltime great in Nadal
Vilas with 1 RG, 3 RG final, 4 atp master series, 5 master series finals and at the same era of clay alltime great Borg.

Vilas lost 2 finals to Borg, 1 to 18 year old Mats Wilander and won RG when Borg wasnt there to compete.
Federer lost 3 finals and one semifinal to Nadal and won the tournament defeating the guy who had defeated Nadal.

Federer-Nadal on clay 2-9
Vilas-Borg on clay 2-11

These guys are very even on clay, but I think Federer might win this contest by an inch.

habibko
06-07-2009, 05:29 PM
Federer is the best clay courter this year with RG and Madrid titles, I think he gained more points in total than Nadal as well right?

marcRD
06-07-2009, 05:34 PM
Federer is the best clay courter this year with RG and Madrid titles, I think he gained more points in total than Nadal as well right?

Federer:2000+1000+360+90=3450
Nadal:1000+1000+180+600+500=3280

Navratil
06-07-2009, 05:37 PM
Yes, he is! His game suits clay courts so well, he's moving and sliding well and using his spins & slices.

He is just unlucky to have Nadal, maybe the best claycourter in history, around him. The competition is probably better on clay, that's why he was more successful on grass.

superslam77
06-07-2009, 05:48 PM
Roland Garros: SF,F,F,F,W
-------------------------------
Monte Carlo:F,F,F
Rome:F,F,SF
Hamburg:W,W,W,W,F
Madrid(clay):W
-------------------------------
Munich:W
Gstaad:W
Estoril:W
-------------------------------

CLAY FINAL'S GRANDSLAM...

ballbasher101
06-07-2009, 05:50 PM
Roland Garros: SF,F,F,F,W
-------------------------------
Monte Carlo:F,F,F
Rome:F,F,SF
Hamburg:W,W,W,W,F
Madrid(clay):W
-------------------------------
Munich:W
Gstaad:W
Estoril:W
-------------------------------

CLAY FINAL'S GRANDSLAM...

Anyone would kill to have that sort of record on clay.

AsianSensation
06-07-2009, 05:54 PM
Roland Garros: SF,F,F,F,W
-------------------------------
Monte Carlo:F,F,F
Rome:F,F,SF
Hamburg:W,W,W,W,F
Madrid(clay):W
-------------------------------
Munich:W
Gstaad:W
Estoril:W
-------------------------------

CLAY FINAL'S GRANDSLAM...

no Sopot or Casablanca...this Federer sucks on clay!!!! :devil:

habibko
06-07-2009, 05:54 PM
Federer:2000+1000+360+90=3450
Nadal:1000+1000+180+600+500=3280

and he achieved this when he is past his prime and Nadal the clay GOAT is in his absolute peak, that says it all.

also Federer defeated Nadal in straights in their only meeting on clay this year, wow Roger has actually dominated the clay season in the presence of the clay GOAT.

marcRD
06-07-2009, 05:57 PM
and he achieved this when he is past his prime and Nadal the clay GOAT is in his absolute peak, that says it all.

also Federer defeated Nadal in straights in their only meeting on clay this year, wow Roger has actually dominated the clay season in the presence of the clay GOAT.


What a comeback too, after Rome Rafa was leading 2500 against Federer's 450 points.

superslam77
06-07-2009, 06:06 PM
and he achieved this when he is past his prime and Nadal the clay GOAT is in his absolute peak, that says it all.

also Federer defeated Nadal in straights in their only meeting on clay this year, wow Roger has actually dominated the clay season in the presence of the clay GOAT.

Vamos Single Handed Backhand!!! :worship:

samanosuke
06-07-2009, 06:11 PM
for me only 3 players that are better on clay in history are Borg, Guga and Rafa

Acer
06-07-2009, 06:24 PM
Federer:2000+1000+360+90=3450
Nadal:1000+1000+180+600+500=3280

Better than Nadal on clay! :worship:

Commander Data
06-07-2009, 06:27 PM
0 RG = not of the clay GOATS

:wavey:

1 RG and counting...

:wavey:

Commander Data
06-07-2009, 06:29 PM
and he achieved this when he is past his prime and Nadal the clay GOAT is in his absolute peak, that says it all.

also Federer defeated Nadal in straights in their only meeting on clay this year, wow Roger has actually dominated the clay season in the presence of the clay GOAT.

Thats impressive stuff right there.Coming out of his biggest slump to dominate clay while nadal is there.

madmax
06-07-2009, 06:29 PM
wow, who would have thought that he would gather more points in clay season than the proclaimed GOAT Nadull...that's like a smack in the face to all Nadulltards - their hero is being owned on his favorite surface..

Commander Data
06-07-2009, 06:34 PM
wow, who would have thought that he would gather more points in clay season than the proclaimed GOAT Nadull...that's like a smack in the face to all Nadulltards - their hero is being owned on his favorite surface..

Smart scheduling, consistency and mental power. Vamos!

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 06:35 PM
I think Roger's clay accomplishments are somewhat similar now to Laver's, with this RG win in mind. Not amazing, but very good.

Laver also had a contemporary who was a clay wiz - Rosewall - a true great and in his prime years nearly unbeatable player on the surface.

Action Jackson
06-07-2009, 06:37 PM
I think Roger's clay accomplishments are somewhat similar now to Laver's, with this RG win in mind. Not amazing, but very good.

Laver also had a contemporary who was a clay wiz - Rosewall - a true great and in his prime years nearly unbeatable player on the surface.

He and Laver the two best fast court fiends on the surface.

romaine
06-07-2009, 06:48 PM
Federer:2000+1000+360+90=3450
Nadal:1000+1000+180+600+500=3280

Amazing... who would've thought? Well, even though the numbers say otherwise, I think Nadal's season was still a little bit better than Roger's.

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 06:48 PM
He and Laver the two best fast court fiends on the surface.

Most likely. Laver did win his RG by beating Rosewall, however it should be acknowledged that Rosewall was quite a bit past his prime by then. So I don't hold it against Roger that he didn't beat Nadal on RG clay.

Great players take advantage of such opportunities.

Action Jackson
06-07-2009, 06:52 PM
Most likely. Laver did win his RG by beating Rosewall, however it should be acknowledged that Rosewall was quite a bit past his prime by then. So I don't hold it against Roger that he didn't beat Nadal on RG clay.

Great players take advantage of such opportunities.

Yes, he did, and he missed out on 7 years of Slams. They both grew up playing on clay, hence they got the movement aspect sorted early out, even if their games weren't necessarily suited to the red stuff.

Laver was finally able to use his topspin backhand, as for Roger not beating Rafa, it's like when Agassi won RG, no one remembers his draw to it and what he did.

Garson007
06-07-2009, 07:05 PM
Smart scheduling, consistency and mental power. Vamos!
Don't forget to include luck. ;)

marcRD
06-08-2009, 02:34 PM
Don't forget to include luck. ;)

You know why this wasnt luck? It is because Federer had been patient and worked hard on clay for this day to happen. In 5 years he waited for the day Nadal would lose on clay and ofcourse the odds say that this could happen once in 5 years. It is the fruit of patience not luck, unlike Agassi who came out of the blue without any good claycourt results in almost a decade, Federer had been just there every final waiting for the day Nadal wouldnt be on the other side of the net for half a decade in almost every claycourt tournament.

So while Agassi took advantage of a situation which appeared out of the blue Federer had been waiting and planning for the day he could take advantage of such a situation once it appeared. Federer was even vocal about it, one day Nadal might not be there and that day I will be there to take this title. I mean it is truly the fruit of incredible stubbornness and patience.

JediFed
06-08-2009, 02:54 PM
That's the best part. Can you imagine waiting for 5 years to get your shot?

I can just see him saying that, someday, somewhere somehow, you are going to lose, and I'll be there to take advantage.

Purple Rainbow
06-08-2009, 03:05 PM
You know why this wasnt luck? It is because Federer had been patient and worked hard on clay for this day to happen. In 5 years he waited for the day Nadal would lose on clay and ofcourse the odds say that this could happen once in 5 years. It is the fruit of patience not luck, unlike Agassi who came out of the blue without any good claycourt results in almost a decade, Federer had been just there every final waiting for the day Nadal wouldnt be on the other side of the net for half a decade in almost every claycourt tournament.


I call BS on the Agassi part.
The rest of the post I agree with wholeheartedly.

Federerhingis
06-08-2009, 03:42 PM
I think Roger's clay accomplishments are somewhat similar now to Laver's, with this RG win in mind. Not amazing, but very good.

Laver also had a contemporary who was a clay wiz - Rosewall - a true great and in his prime years nearly unbeatable player on the surface.
Totally agree, Federer probably falls some where tied with Agassi or slightly above Agassi on the best clay courters list. I guess the variety and more consistent results on clay give Roger the upper hand against Andre, but Andre did win Rome, that's how good his return and baseline game was, it even translated extremely well on clay, where he was not a natural mover or slider.

I call BS on the Agassi part.
The rest of the post I agree with wholeheartedly.
Exactly Agassi did have very good results on clay, he had actually made two Roland Finals in his early career in the early 90's. Agassi was supposed to Win Roland first not wimbledon, because clay actually suited his supreme baseline game, unlike the fast grass courts.

marcRD
06-08-2009, 03:47 PM
Exactly Agassi did have very good results on clay, he had actually made two Roland Finals in his early career in the early 90's. Agassi was supposed to Win Roland first not wimbledon, because clay actually suited his supreme baseline game, unlike the fast grass courts.

I know Agassi had great clay results in the early 90s, that was why I said in almost a decade Agassi had no success on clay and then out of the blue he got a golden oppurtunity and he took it. Everything was involved there, luck, mental strength, greatness.

In Federer's case he had been waiting for the oppurtunity to arrive, it is a little bit different.

Both were great on clay and both deserve their RG titles anyway.