How good is Federer on clay? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How good is Federer on clay?

Pages : [1] 2

lessthanjake
07-30-2009, 07:14 PM
How good is Federer on clay? We all know he has been dominated by Rafael Nadal on clay, to the tune of 2-9. However, Nadal is either the best or 2nd best clay courter of all time AND a very bad individual matchup for Federer. As such, while we can obviously say that Federer is a lesser clay courter than Nadal and Borg, we can't really construe that to mean anything further. Would players like Vilas, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi, and Courier really have done any better against Nadal? I personally doubt it, but it is possible.

Here is Federer's clay court record against the OTHER premier clay court players of his era. I included anyone that made the quarterfinals of Roland Garros since 2003 or anyone who made the finals of a Masters 1000 event on clay since 2003. Only matches from Federer's 2003 Wimbledon win onwards are counted, as he was clearly not nearly as good before that point.

Albert Costa: 0-1
Juan Carlos Ferrero: 2-0
Guillermo Coria: 2-0
David Nalbandian: 3-0
Gaston Gaudio: 2-0
Nikolay Davydenko: 3-0
Novak Djokovic: 2-1
Gael Monfils: 3-0
Fernando Gonzalez: 5-0
Juan Martin Del Potro: 2-0
Robin Soderling: 3-0
Radek Stepanek: 3-1
Richard Gasquet: 1-1
Carlos Moya: 3-0
Tommy Robredo: 3-0
David Ferrer: 3-0
Lleyton Hewitt: 1-0
Gustavo Kuerten: 0-1
Juan Ignacio Chela: 1-0
Victor Hanescu: 2-0
Guillermo Canas: 1-0
Mario Ancic: 2-0
Julien Benneteau: 1-0
Igor Andreev: 1-0
Nicolas Almagro: 3-0

Total Record on Clay Against Premier Clay Courters Since Wimbledon 2003: 52-5 (91.2%)

-That includes a 12-2 record on clay against Non-Nadal players who have made the finals of Roland Garros and a 7-2 record against Non-Nadal Roland Garros champions.
-Besides Nadal, no player that I can find has beaten Federer twice on clay since Wimbledon 2003.
-Since his first slam victory, Federer has lost 16 total matches on clay. 9 were against Nadal.

Total Win-Loss Minus Nadal Matches on Clay Since Wimbledon 2003: 98-7 (93.3%)

The fact is that Federer has completely dominated all the best clay court players on clay courts EXCEPT Nadal.

______________________________________________

-Federer is also obviously now a Roland Garros champion, as well as a 3-time runner up. In the Open Era, only Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Wilander, Nadal, and Federer have been to 4 Roland Garros finals, and only Borg, Nadal, Lendl, and Federer have done it in 4 years straight.
-Federer has also won 5 Masters Series titles on clay (4 in Hamburg, 1 in Madrid). Since those events became a big deal in 1990, only Nadal (with 10) and Muster (with 6) have won more on clay.
-EDIT: I forgot to put this in originally. During the 2009 season, Federer actually got more ranking points than Rafael Nadal during the clay season. During that time, he won Roland Garros and beat Nadal in the finals of Madrid. As such, one can say without hesitation that Federer had a better clay court season than Nadal at least once.

______________________________________________


So how good is Federer on clay? Where does he rank all time?

To me the top 10 clay courters of all time in no particular order are:

Borg
Lendl
Wilander
Nadal
Vilas
Federer
Bruguera
Kuerten
Muster
Courier

I would say Borg and Nadal are the top 2. You've got to put Lendl and Wilander ahead of Federer on clay by virtue of their achievements at RG (3 wins and multiple runner up appearances). However, I see Federer as being at the same level on clay as Vilas, Bruguera, Kuerten, Muster, and Courier.

Discuss.

ORGASMATRON
07-30-2009, 07:18 PM
Excellent thread. I think Roger is very underrated on clay since he is playing in the Nadull era. I mean he basically did whatever he had to do while the clay court possible GOAT was around. He was also the better player on clay then Nadull this year which is just sick. You said Lendl and Wilander must be ahead of Fed, but have you considered what their records would have looked like if they were playing in the Nadull era?

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 07:23 PM
This is an original topic.

He is the greatest ever, moonwalks on water.

Arkulari
07-30-2009, 07:24 PM
very interesting thread, and this is one of the reasons why I like Roger so much, I just cannot get into a player that's a mug on clay, and never really warmed-up to Sampras for the same reason :yeah:

imagine there hasn't been Rafa, Roger would probably have been considered as one of the greatest clay-courters ever :)

lessthanjake
07-30-2009, 07:24 PM
Excellent thread. I think Roger is very underrated on clay since he is playing in the Nadull era. I mean he basically did whatever he had to do while the clay court possible GOAT was around. He was also the better player on clay then Nadull this year which is just sick. You said Lendl and Wilander must be ahead of Fed, but have you considered what their records would have looked like if they were playing in the Nadull era?

I have thought of that, and I definitely think that Federer would win his share of matches on clay against Lendl and Wilander, maybe even more than half. However, I can't realistically rank him ahead on clay due to the discrepancy in actual achievement, even though I suspect he might be just as good as them on clay.

ORGASMATRON
07-30-2009, 07:25 PM
This is an original topic.

He is the greatest ever, moonwalks on water.

Exactly.

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 07:28 PM
Fails to take in too many factors and why now and not during the clayseason?

ORGASMATRON
07-30-2009, 07:28 PM
I have thought of that, and I definitely think that Federer would win his share of matches on clay against Lendl and Wilander, maybe even more than half. However, I can't realistically rank him ahead on clay due to the discrepancy in actual achievement, even though I suspect he might be just as good as them on clay.

Thats fair enuff, but i would put him up there with Lendl and Wilander cos they would have suffered the same fate that Fed did against NAdull. The question is just whether they would have achieved what Fed did in this era on clay. I put Fed right up there below Borg and Nadull as the greatest on clay.

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 07:33 PM
Another attempt to say what a mythical and god like creature Federer is.

lessthanjake
07-30-2009, 07:33 PM
This is an original topic.

He is the greatest ever, moonwalks on water.

I am not saying he is the greatest ever. I do not think he is the greatest clay courter.

I do, however, think it is extremely interesting how much Federer dominates the other clay court players of his era. Without the possible-Clay-GOAT+terrible-individual-matchup Nadal, Federer would almost assuredly have won Roland Garros 3-5 times.

Of course, he did NOT win it that many times. He has won it once. However, I think we have to realize that he MIGHT be as good on clay as players like Kuerten, Bruguera, Courier etc etc who have won it 2-3 times.

Honestly, though, this isnt a Federer worship thread. I am legitimately curious what people think. If you think he is far below players like Bruguera or Kuerten or Muster or Courier on clay, then explain why (without just saying the obvious "one title at RG" argument). I would be very interested to hear an argument either way as long as it details specifically what about his game makes him good/not so good on clay.

ORGASMATRON
07-30-2009, 07:36 PM
You must realize if you start a thread like this in GM you will automatically get labelled as a Fedtard. But its good to see you are not bothered by that. Just ignore the clowns, this is a great thread and is long overdue.

TheBoiledEgg
07-30-2009, 07:37 PM
Excellent thread. I think Roger is very underrated on clay since he is playing in the Nadull era. I mean he basically did whatever he had to do while the clay court possible GOAT was around. He was also the better player on clay then Nadull this year which is just sick. You said Lendl and Wilander must be ahead of Fed, but have you considered what their records would have looked like if they were playing in the Nadull era?

Lendl and Wilander would kill Rafa :devil:

lessthanjake
07-30-2009, 07:37 PM
Another attempt to say what a mythical and god like creature Federer is.

No, it's not. I simply showed that he dominated other clay courters of his era.

I played up his clay court achievements in this thread not to worship him, but to emphasize how well he has played on clay despite only winning 1 RG title. The reason I emphasized that was in order to spark debate over whether he might be as good as people who have won 1 or 2 more RG titles than he has.

I am rather neutral on that debate itself (as shown by the fact that my OP put him on the same level as those other players, not better or worse). I just want to hear people's opinions.

Sunset of Age
07-30-2009, 07:38 PM
He is a very good player on clay. One semi-final, three finals and one title in RG says it all, especially if one takes into account that all of his losses in those have come from Rafa, if not THE best clay-courter ever, than surely the best after Borg.

It's as easy as that. :shrug:

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 07:38 PM
I am not saying he is the greatest ever. I do not think he is the greatest clay courter.

I do, however, think it is extremely interesting how much Federer dominates the other clay court players of his era. Without the possible-Clay-GOAT+terrible-individual-matchup Nadal, Federer would almost assuredly have won Roland Garros 3-5 times.

Of course, he did NOT win it that many times. He has won it once. However, I think we have to realize that he MIGHT be as good on clay as players like Kuerten, Bruguera, Courier etc etc who have won it 2-3 times.

Honestly, though, this isnt a Federer worship thread. I am legitimately curious what people think. If you think he is far below players like Bruguera or Kuerten or Muster or Courier on clay, then explain why (without just saying the obvious "one title at RG" argument). I would be very interested to hear an argument either way as long as it details specifically what about his game makes him good/not so good on clay.

This is a Federer worship thread.

This is not a new topic and has been discussed numerous times actually with a lot of different scenarios and in other threads.

It's the fact that Federer has done the best against Nadal, who is one of the greatest players ever on the surface, therefore it must mean he is one of the greatest ever.

If you choose to ignore the fact how the style of game on clay has changed and is more like the hardcourt game translated on all surfaces and ignore other factors of when the players you think he is better than, by using numbers to justify his greatness without measuring other things, then it's a Fed worship thread.

Federer is probably the best attacking player in the classic sense along with Laver on clay, but that is a different thing altogether.

Lleyton_
07-30-2009, 07:39 PM
Action Jackson you're a Federer fan. It's ok. You can act like one. Chill out.

Sapeod
07-30-2009, 07:40 PM
AJ needs to chill out. It's just a thread and nobody is worshipping Federer.

guga2120
07-30-2009, 07:45 PM
He's the third best player, right now on clay.

Arkulari
07-30-2009, 07:47 PM
He's the third best player, right now on clay.

do you mean he's behind Nadal and Borg? :)

Dini
07-30-2009, 07:48 PM
do you mean he's behind Nadal and Borg? :)

:secret: He probably means behind Djokovic.

DrJules
07-30-2009, 07:49 PM
Top 10 of the open era (possibly):

1) Borg
2) Nadal (if fit will overtake Borg in time)
3) Keurten
4) Lendl
5) Wilander
6) Bruguera
7) Vilas
8) Muster
9) Federer / Kodes / Courier

rubbERR
07-30-2009, 07:50 PM
its just his opinion you annonying fanboy

Arkulari
07-30-2009, 07:50 PM
:secret: He probably means behind Djokovic.


:lol: 1 MS on clay vs 5 MS and a RG? :p

lessthanjake
07-30-2009, 07:51 PM
This is a Federer worship thread.

This is not a new topic and has been discussed numerous times actually with a lot of different scenarios and in other threads.

It's the fact that Federer has done the best against Nadal, who is one of the greatest players ever on the surface, therefore it must mean he is one of the greatest ever.

If you choose to ignore the fact how the style of game on clay has changed and is more like the hardcourt game translated on all surfaces and ignore other factors of when the players you think he is better than, by using numbers to justify his greatness without measuring other things, then it's a Fed worship thread.

Federer is probably the best attacking player in the classic sense along with Laver on clay, but that is a different thing altogether.

No it's not. Just because it is not new, does not mean it is a worship thread. I saw a thread today over at TTW detailing Federer's head-to-head with a lot of players on clay, and it sparked my interest. I decided to expand upon that research and look up his head-to-head against just about every good clay court player because I was interested. The results were rather striking, hence I shared them in a thread. I then used those results to hopefully spark a discussion of sorts.

That's how this thread came about. I don't worship Federer. You will see me on this forum defending Nadal as not being a moonballer, expressing the fact that I think Mats Wilander is better than his reputation, and making many other random arguments that have nothing to do with Federer.

The rest of your post is on topic though. Clay courts HAVE changed to an extent. I believe they have gotten faster in recent years. Do you think this has helped Federer? Though he is an attacking player, he IS also one of the best movers on tour and probably one of the best ever, so slower courts wouldn't exactly kill him, right?

As for him being one of the best attacking players on clay, how do you figure that? How does he attack on clay better than others?

Dini
07-30-2009, 07:52 PM
:lol: 1 MS on clay vs 5 MS and a RG? :p

How else would he mean it; all time?

No way is Fed the 3rd best clay courter of all time. :p

Sapeod
07-30-2009, 07:54 PM
its just his opinion you annonying fanboy
You should take up a trolling job. I heard they pay good money and you are an expert at it :D

Arkulari
07-30-2009, 07:54 PM
well, Hamburg in the early 2000's wasn't exactly the fastest surface, and he won it 4 times, so it's not like he can't move on slow clay, but yes, the clay courts have changed, for example this year PC on RG was incredibly fast and it helped big hitters like Toad and Gonzo to get far and an attacking player like Roger to win it ;)

Nad: Roger is the second best clay-courter of his generation and in the top 10 of good clay-courters of the open era, to think that's his "weakest" surface :o :p

Sapeod
07-30-2009, 07:55 PM
How else would he mean it; all time?

No way is Fed the 3rd best clay courter of all time. :p
Some people have crazy thought and opinons :shrug:

lessthanjake
07-30-2009, 07:58 PM
Top 10 of the open era (possibly):

1) Borg
2) Nadal (if fit will overtake Borg in time)
3) Keurten
4) Lendl
5) Wilander
6) Bruguera
7) Vilas
8) Muster
9) Federer / Kodes / Courier

I can understand the first 5 given their 3+ RG titles.

But what makes you put Bruguera, Vilas, and Muster ahead of Federer? Also, why do you put Courier below those guys?

I am not saying you're wrong; but I am curious where your opinion comes from. Since you put Federer tied with Courier, you are obviously not going by straight RG wins.

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 08:07 PM
No it's not. Just because it is not new, does not mean it is a worship thread. I saw a thread today over at TTW detailing Federer's head-to-head with a lot of players on clay, and it sparked my interest. I decided to expand upon that research and look up his head-to-head against just about every good clay court player because I was interested. The results were rather striking, hence I shared them in a thread. I then used those results to hopefully spark a discussion of sorts.

It has been discussed before in great detail. Fed vs Guga. Will Federer ever win RG thread, there are other numerous MTF threads that deal with Federer on clay, hence it's far from new matter and hhad good discussions.

That's how this thread came about. I don't worship Federer. You will see me on this forum defending Nadal as not being a moonballer, expressing the fact that I think Mats Wilander is better than his reputation, and making many other random arguments that have nothing to do with Federer.


Grossly overrating Federer's place in the game on clay. Dr Jules list sums it up, though not the order, but with the right names. You did it before another thread to bump up Federer's place in the game when he doesn't need it.

The rest of your post is on topic though. Clay courts HAVE changed to an extent. I believe they have gotten faster in recent years. Do you think this has helped Federer? Though he is an attacking player, he IS also one of the best movers on tour and probably one of the best ever, so slower courts wouldn't exactly kill him, right?

As for him being one of the best attacking players on clay, how do you figure that? How does he attack on clay better than others

It's not the speed of the courts that is the main factor. When did you start watching tennis honestly? Look at the game that is played today, it's different on all surfaces and it helps Federer on clay. Considering Nadal is the only person playing now that can get it high on his BH, you should be able to work it out from there.

How is he better than Kuerten, Bruguera, Vilas and Muster on clay at their respective peaks? No bean counting either.

Well Federer is better than Stich, Edberg and Noah who were excellent on clay with their movement and volleying skills, it's just an ability and execution thing, not hard to spot that.

Har-Tru
07-30-2009, 08:09 PM
He is a very good player on a clay court. Just like Vilas only got one FO thanks to Borg and would most probably have got more, Federer would have got more FO if it wasn't for Nadal. Yes, that's no excuse, but Borg and Nadal are the best clay courters ever.

Har-Tru
07-30-2009, 08:12 PM
Top 10 of the open era (possibly):

1) Borg
2) Nadal (if fit will overtake Borg in time)
3) Keurten
4) Lendl
5) Wilander
6) Bruguera
7) Vilas
8) Muster
9) Federer / Kodes / Courier

Vilas should be above Bruguera, but not a bad list. Federer and Courier could be placed above Muster. Being an excellent specialist is not the same as being an excellent player on that surface.

maskedmuffin
07-30-2009, 08:38 PM
There are a lot of people here who tend to underrate the (lack thereof) speed of the clay court and overrate some of the other top 10 clay courters in an effort to demonstrate how federer's game wouldn't "Translate" to these players (muster, brugera, courier).

The fact of the matter is those guys,including guys like lendl/wilander just couldnt DREAM of producing the type of hefty lefty spin that nadal does , if you gave them all the babalot racquet. They just dont have his physique and agressivenss to produce that ball TIME after TIME after TIME

And essentially, this is the only reason that federer has been derailed from winning 4 to 5 french opens in this era - its been nadal and thats about it.

Roger moves beautifully for clay.. His forehand is still devastating against 99.9 % of players on the red stuff, and his transition defense-to-offense game is magnified on the surface.

It really DOES boil down to a matchup problem. If people want to tell me that somehow a prime federer wouldnt be able to "handle" the "spin" of a lendl (laughable because ivan was far from the spinmaster) or even the wizardly of a wilander, if they all were given today's technology and were in their primes, i would laugh at all those posters in their face and serious question their judgement as tennis critiques.

Its not about worshipping federer as much as it is about watching him play Live and realizing what a fluid mover he is, and how much racquet head speed he can generate from so many different racquet head angles. None of these aformentioned guys could do it as often and as consistently as roger does (sure lendl had the thwartingly flat forehand, and the runner forehand - but roger eats up the flatties and returns with interest when hes in his zone).

The advantage then that many of these posters are claiming that these former champs had is some sort of "mentality" advantage


Hello..the only reason roger has a "mentality" disadvantage on the red stuff is precisely BECAUSE of the matchup with nadal. Rafa can hit the same INCREDIBLY HEAVY topspin forehand to roger's backhand for 5 sets, himself without having his arm fall off, run down balls like a maniac when roger does time those high flying forehand right, and basically beat roger into submission on that surface.

Now tell me, which one of borg/lendl/wilander, given this present technology and porting them into the 2000's in their physical prime (all 6 foot 150 pounds of them soaking wet)

could do that to roger?

Bueller..anyone..bueller?


Because that really would be the only chance they would have of slowing down roger. Trying to "out medium spin" rally roger would be a losing proposition.

So please..whose going to generate topspin that has the heft to flick the ball over roger's head.. and return to the center of the court to handle whatever ripping forehand that may be coming back their way?


And courier? lol...he would inside out his way OFF the court while roger would have the open lane for the winner. Roger would play his 2 handed baseball swing backhand like a drum.


Maybe jim would distract him by "spitting" around a lot..and caning an umpire. ;)

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 08:42 PM
Nadal is the only player to have ever hit topspin. Hence the whole comparing era thing again.

Borg had a wooden racquet, so would Nadal have the same topspin with a wooden racquet? Nadal and Fed would they generate the same stuff they do know with technology in the 90s.

Lendl and Wilander wouldn't play the same game now as they did in the peaks, but forget something like this.

JediFed
07-30-2009, 08:48 PM
He's good.

I can see the argument to rank him sixth, behind Vilas.

The real question is where does he stand in comparison to Guga, Courier, Bruguera and Muster, all of whom were excellent on clay.

I'd argue that his peak is not as good as Guga, Courier or Bruguera, but he has had the longevity over all three.

BigJohn
07-30-2009, 08:50 PM
do you mean he's behind Nadal and Borg? :)

:secret: He probably means behind Djokovic.

I'd like a confirmation: anyone seriously thinks Djokovic is better than Federer on clay?

samanosuke
07-30-2009, 09:11 PM
Top 10 of the open era (possibly):

1) Borg
2) Nadal (if fit will overtake Borg in time)
3) Keurten
4) Lendl
5) Wilander
6) Bruguera
7) Vilas
8) Muster
9) Federer / Kodes / Courier


Muster ahead Federer is very doubtful

Dini
07-30-2009, 09:17 PM
I'd like a confirmation: anyone seriously thinks Djokovic is better than Federer on clay?

Some people were outrightly convinced that was the case this year and perhaps overall even, and some still think that. :shrug: And it doesn't surprise me really. I can see where they are coming from but stats don't lie.

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 09:21 PM
I'd like a confirmation: anyone seriously thinks Djokovic is better than Federer on clay?

No.

lessthanjake
07-30-2009, 09:25 PM
It has been discussed before in great detail. Fed vs Guga. Will Federer ever win RG thread, there are other numerous MTF threads that deal with Federer on clay, hence it's far from new matter and hhad good discussions.

Okay well discuss it again. I didnt bump up an old thread for a few reasons:

1. It is not exactly the same as any previous thread I know of. It doesnt totally fit a Guga vs Fed WWW thread for instance.
2. I had a whole load of stuff to say in the OP. A bump post that long is just silly because no one will read all of it.
3. When you bump an old thread, people tend to not realize it is old and start arguing with points made a long time ago on the old thread. I didn't want that, because I wanted specific discussion on what I said.

Grossly overrating Federer's place in the game on clay. Dr Jules list sums it up, though not the order, but with the right names. You did it before another thread to bump up Federer's place in the game when he doesn't need it.

I believe the last post I made on this forum was calling into question the logic of the article recently posted about Federer's head to head with Nadal being meaningless. Hardly the action of somebody who is just posting to boost up Federer. Some of my posts probably DO do that; but that's not my agenda.

It's not the speed of the courts that is the main factor. When did you start watching tennis honestly? Look at the game that is played today, it's different on all surfaces and it helps Federer on clay. Considering Nadal is the only person playing now that can get it high on his BH, you should be able to work it out from there.


I dont see your point about saying Nadal is the only person who can get it high to his BH NOW...Better rackets has made it EASIER to produce a lot of topspin than it was before, hence it is EASIER to get it high to Federer's backhand than it ever would have been before.

The only way in the past to get it HIGHER than you can now would have been to take pace off the ball and hit it far above the net. That might have gotten the ball higher, but would not have been nearly as problematic because a slower shot is easier to time, and easier to run around to hit a forehand.

Furthermore, it is not all about the ball being high to Federer's backhand. It is a high and HEAVY shot to his backhand that he has trouble with. The heaviness of a shot comes from topspin and speed of the ball, two things that technology has made easier to create.

So I dont see your point. In my view, only modern rackets could facilitate the crazy heavy topspin of Nadal's forehand. With that said, players in the past would likely have been LESS able to exploit that weakness of Federer's. So what was your point?

How is he better than Kuerten, Bruguera, Vilas and Muster on clay at their respective peaks? No bean counting either.

I didnt say he was. I asked for discussion about it. The argument for Federer would probably involve consistency at RG and overall record against one's peers. I dont say that Federer is better than those guys on clay necessarily though.

timafi
07-30-2009, 09:26 PM
I bet Sampras wished he had that kind of record on clay:tape:

Har-Tru
07-30-2009, 09:35 PM
I bet Sampras wished he had that kind of record on clay:tape:

that is very relevant.

maskedmuffin
07-30-2009, 09:38 PM
Nadal is the only player to have ever hit topspin. Hence the whole comparing era thing again.

Borg had a wooden racquet, so would Nadal have the same topspin with a wooden racquet? Nadal and Fed would they generate the same stuff they do know with technology in the 90s.

Lendl and Wilander wouldn't play the same game now as they did in the peaks, but forget something like this.

Both these guys would obviously have a harder time doing what they are doing now with a less spin friendly raquet AND strings

But lets not forget that roger federer is trying to center a ball on his 90 square inch stick that plays way closer to the wooden frame than that aeropro 100 square inch racquet. His game *IS* more transferable to the wooden era than the whippy nadal game would be. And the adjustments he makes on his stroke, the stuff that McEnroe just raves about as pure genius, have to do with the innate feel he has with the racquet - i would say that is a hell of a lot to do with natural talent.

I havent mentioned the gliding footwork, thats stuff that is racquet indpendent. Thats what allows him to be in the right position to execute shots that most people would onsider too low percentage to try.

Those are all very very transferable.

Now, pray do tell me whose going to generate the nadal topspin thats going to thwart primo 2006 fed? Muster? - hes got a more sidespin funky shot than nadal's vertical spin.

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 09:50 PM
Both these guys would obviously have a harder time doing what they are doing now with a less spin friendly raquet AND strings

But lets not forget that roger federer is trying to center a ball on his 90 square inch stick that plays way closer to the wooden frame than that aeropro 100 square inch racquet. His game *IS* more transferable to the wooden era than the whippy nadal game would be. And the adjustments he makes on his stroke, the stuff that McEnroe just raves about as pure genius, have to do with the innate feel he has with the racquet - i would say that is a hell of a lot to do with natural talent.

No one is questioning Federer's talent, who has questioned that? So the guys that played earlier wouldn't benefit from better conditioning and advanced technology either? It's this simple, champions are going to be champions in any era, that goes for Federer, Nadal, Lendl, Borg, Wilander, Laver and the few that are champions.

In other words you can't champion one thing and forget about the other factors that don't suit your viewpoint.

I havent mentioned the gliding footwork, thats stuff that is racquet indpendent. Thats what allows him to be in the right position to execute shots that most people would onsider too low percentage to try.


Those are all very very transferable.

Laver, Noah, Edberg, Stich and Federer moved beautifully on a clay court, so what about it. He happens to better than the other 4 mentioned which I already stated a while ago.

Now, pray do tell me whose going to generate the nadal topspin thats going to thwart primo 2006 fed? Muster? - hes got a more sidespin funky shot than nadal's vertical spinI havent mentioned the gliding footwork, thats stuff that is racquet indpendent. Thats what allows him to be in the right position to execute shots that most people would onsider too low percentage to try.

Why make it out that Nadal is the only person ever to hit topspin? Bruguera didn't hit heavy topspin off both sides or is that just selective memory. Unlike Muster, he liked a target at the net.

rocketassist
07-30-2009, 09:52 PM
Lendl would bully Nadal everywhere on clay.

Har-Tru
07-30-2009, 09:55 PM
Lendl would bully Nadal everywhere on clay.

With which technology? In any case, I don't think so.

rocketassist
07-30-2009, 09:57 PM
With which technology? In any case, I don't think so.

Didn't say he would win but Lendl is like Djokovic but better at absolutely everything, so Nadal would probably looking at the match up styles be on the defensive a lot of the time.

lessthanjake
07-30-2009, 10:05 PM
Bruguera is probably the only guy to ever hit AS MUCH topspin as Nadal. As such, I bet Federer would have had trouble in an individual matchup with him too. Wasn't he a righty though? If so, it wouldnt be quite as bad for Federer.

The fact is, though, that Federer's weakness is actually sort of created by modern technology. Federer has a problem with heavy topspun balls with lots of pace coming deep onto his backhand side and bouncing high. With the rackets of previous decades, it was not nearly as easy to consistently generate so much topspin.

This means one could do a few different things to try to get a similar effect:
1. Take a lot of pace off the ball and launch it deep still. That will get it high and deep to Federer's backhand, but with less pace. As such it would be more easily timed for the backhand or hit for an inside-out forehand. Furthermore, this method makes the ball considerably less heavy, and thus easier to deal with.
2. Still try to generate the same level of topspin, pace, and depth. First off, the strings aren't as powerful so you wouldnt be able to generate quite as much pace. But regardless, with smaller wooden rackets, trying to generate that kind of topspin consistently would lead anyone to hit WAY too many errors.
3. Keep the pace and depth on the ball, and just live with less spin. This wouldnt really bother Federer as the shot wouldn't be heavy or high on his backhand

Granted, if Federer were using lesser rackets, he would find it harder to hit less high and less heavy shots, but his opponents shots would be hampered in that regard just as much. The way he hits his backhand makes him particularly vulnerable to high, heavy, fast, and deep shots to his backhand. You can't create that with old rackets nearly as consistently.

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 10:06 PM
I bet Sampras wished he had that kind of record on clay:tape:

A lot of people would.

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 10:06 PM
Okay well discuss it again. I didnt bump up an old thread for a few reasons:

1. It is not exactly the same as any previous thread I know of. It doesnt totally fit a Guga vs Fed WWW thread for instance.
2. I had a whole load of stuff to say in the OP. A bump post that long is just silly because no one will read all of it.
3. When you bump an old thread, people tend to not realize it is old and start arguing with points made a long time ago on the old thread. I didn't want that, because I wanted specific discussion on what I said.


It's not anything different at all, but we are never going to agree on that.

I believe the last post I made on this forum was calling into question the logic of the article recently posted about Federer's head to head with Nadal being meaningless. Hardly the action of somebody who is just posting to boost up Federer. Some of my posts probably DO do that; but that's not my agenda.

Fair enough, that is your explanation, not that I agree with it, you have promoted Federer quite a lot when not necessary.

I dont see your point about saying Nadal is the only person who can get it high to his BH NOW...Better rackets has made it EASIER to produce a lot of topspin than it was before, hence it is EASIER to get it high to Federer's backhand than it ever would have been before.

The only way in the past to get it HIGHER than you can now would have been to take pace off the ball and hit it far above the net. That might have gotten the ball higher, but would not have been nearly as problematic because a slower shot is easier to time, and easier to run around to hit a forehand.

Furthermore, it is not all about the ball being high to Federer's backhand. It is a high and HEAVY shot to his backhand that he has trouble with. The heaviness of a shot comes from topspin and speed of the ball, two things that technology has made easier to create.


You never answered my question about when you started watching tennis? What do you think guys like Bruguera, Berasategui, Corretja, Al Costa and Muster did with their shots in their peaks? They hit a very heavy ball, some had more stick on it and others, this has no relation to Nadal at all, only given to the gamestyle of those guys at the time they played with the equipment.

Federer struggled with Felix Mantilla in Rome, who past his best on the backhand side when Felix was defending everything and putting it deep on that side. You think better players than Mantilla aren't going to exploit that, if given the same equipment or not.

If the majority of players are playing a hardcourt style of tennis on clay and hitting more powerfully with less spin which is clearly the case and Federer loves playing those guys, redirecting their power and the ball is in his strike zone, then he is going to slap them around as he has done.

This leads to the pointless exercise that is, because the eras can't be compared for the obvious reasons already.


I didnt say he was. I asked for discussion about it. The argument for Federer would probably involve consistency at RG and overall record against one's peers. I dont say that Federer is better than those guys on clay necessarily though..

Well you named a list and you had him higher than others mentioned, yet you won't explain why?

Lleyton_
07-30-2009, 10:14 PM
There are a lot of people here who tend to underrate the (lack thereof) speed of the clay court and overrate some of the other top 10 clay courters in an effort to demonstrate how federer's game wouldn't "Translate" to these players (muster, brugera, courier).

The fact of the matter is those guys,including guys like lendl/wilander just couldnt DREAM of producing the type of hefty lefty spin that nadal does , if you gave them all the babalot racquet. They just dont have his physique and agressivenss to produce that ball TIME after TIME after TIME

And essentially, this is the only reason that federer has been derailed from winning 4 to 5 french opens in this era - its been nadal and thats about it.

Roger moves beautifully for clay.. His forehand is still devastating against 99.9 % of players on the red stuff, and his transition defense-to-offense game is magnified on the surface.

It really DOES boil down to a matchup problem. If people want to tell me that somehow a prime federer wouldnt be able to "handle" the "spin" of a lendl (laughable because ivan was far from the spinmaster) or even the wizardly of a wilander, if they all were given today's technology and were in their primes, i would laugh at all those posters in their face and serious question their judgement as tennis critiques.

Its not about worshipping federer as much as it is about watching him play Live and realizing what a fluid mover he is, and how much racquet head speed he can generate from so many different racquet head angles. None of these aformentioned guys could do it as often and as consistently as roger does (sure lendl had the thwartingly flat forehand, and the runner forehand - but roger eats up the flatties and returns with interest when hes in his zone).

The advantage then that many of these posters are claiming that these former champs had is some sort of "mentality" advantage


Hello..the only reason roger has a "mentality" disadvantage on the red stuff is precisely BECAUSE of the matchup with nadal. Rafa can hit the same INCREDIBLY HEAVY topspin forehand to roger's backhand for 5 sets, himself without having his arm fall off, run down balls like a maniac when roger does time those high flying forehand right, and basically beat roger into submission on that surface.

Now tell me, which one of borg/lendl/wilander, given this present technology and porting them into the 2000's in their physical prime (all 6 foot 150 pounds of them soaking wet)

could do that to roger?

Bueller..anyone..bueller?


Because that really would be the only chance they would have of slowing down roger. Trying to "out medium spin" rally roger would be a losing proposition.

So please..whose going to generate topspin that has the heft to flick the ball over roger's head.. and return to the center of the court to handle whatever ripping forehand that may be coming back their way?


And courier? lol...he would inside out his way OFF the court while roger would have the open lane for the winner. Roger would play his 2 handed baseball swing backhand like a drum.


Maybe jim would distract him by "spitting" around a lot..and caning an umpire. ;)


You're making too much sense.

Har-Tru
07-30-2009, 10:17 PM
Didn't say he would win but Lendl is like Djokovic but better at absolutely everything, so Nadal would probably looking at the match up styles be on the defensive a lot of the time.

I disagree. Lendl's backhand, by the way, was clearly worse than Djokovic's. But it would be a good match to see. With the technology of the 80's, Lendl would take it home perhaps. Today, I highly doubt it.

leng jai
07-30-2009, 10:19 PM
Id SaY FeDcloWn iS FaiR oKaY oN ClaY, I MeAN, 3 finALS anD One TitLe is pRetTy OkaY iN mY boOk.

Dini
07-30-2009, 10:22 PM
Id SaY FeDcloWn iS FaiR oKaY oN ClaY, I MeAN, 3 finALS anD One TitLe is pRetTy OkaY iN mY boOk.

:lol:

Clay Death
07-30-2009, 10:25 PM
With which technology? In any case, I don't think so.


affirmative. its pretty damn clear even to blindest of the blindest that the clay monster, when healthy and at the top of his game, is basically unbeatable on clay.

nobody from the past would have stood much of a chance against him. nobody.

now the fucked up knees have changed a few things so we will just have too see what happens going forward.

he struggled with pain and his movement at monte carlo, barcelona, rome, and again at madrid this year. i just knew he was in trouble.

that said, rocketassist isnt this a thread about fed on clay?

why do you have to worry about the clay monster every 10 seconds?

Dini
07-30-2009, 10:30 PM
CD Nadal is outrageously good on clay, but a lot of his success apart from movement is down to the heavy top spin he generates. Would he have generated the same amount of top spin had he used the racquets Borg used? I don't know about that, but then again I'm no expert when it comes to racquets.

lessthanjake
07-30-2009, 10:37 PM
You never answered my question about when you started watching tennis? What do you think guys like Bruguera, Berasategui, Corretja, Al Costa and Muster did with their shots in their peaks? They hit a very heavy ball, some had more stick on it and others, this has no relation to Nadal at all, only given to the gamestyle of those guys at the time they played with the equipment.

Yes, but only Bruguera really had the amount of topspin that Nadal has. That has been documented in studies actually. Bruguera is the only person to get nearly as many rpms on his topspun shot as Nadal does.

These guys all hit a very heavy ball, as well, and Federer might have had a problem with them too. However, as has been stated, a lot of these guys put a different kind of spin on the ball; more sidespin and less topspin. This wouldnt have bothered Federer as much.

Regardless, though, plenty of guys hit very topspun, heavy shots nowadays too. They are just not quite as extreme as Nadal's, just as the guys you mentioned (excepting Bruguera) had less extreme topspin than Nadal. No one else's shot nowadays gives Federer the same fits though. This is because Federer has a very specific problem. He cant deal well with REALLY high, heavy, fast, and deep shots to his backhand. Without producing the obscene levels of topspin that Nadal does, it is IMPOSSIBLE to create that same combination of high, heavy, fast, and deep. Without that same extreme combination, Federer seems to be able to deal with spin just fine on his backhand side. It seems that he has a comfort zone that only Nadal's extreme spin can consistently get him away from.

With that said, I do not think he would have as many problems with the relatively heavily spun shots of players like Muster, because it is just not as crazy as Nadal's.

Federer struggled with Felix Mantilla in Rome, who past his best on the backhand side when Felix was defending everything and putting it deep on that side. You think better players than Mantilla aren't going to exploit that, if given the same equipment or not.

Federer played Mantilla in Rome in in 2003. That was the same year he lost in Roland Garros in the 1st round. He wasn't a very good clay courter yet, so I do not think that that match is particularly relevant.

If the majority of players are playing a hardcourt style of tennis on clay and hitting more powerfully with less spin which is clearly the case and Federer loves playing those guys, redirecting their power and the ball is in his strike zone, then he is going to slap them around as he has done.


I dont think you realize that players play with MORE spin now. They just play with MUCH MORE pace. That is what racket technology allows one to do, and lots of topspin in order to create angles is what the power baseline game that dominates tennis today is all about.

In the past, spin might have LOOKED more intense because players hit it slower.

But players like Federer and Roddick who are not known for HUGE amounts of topspin hit the ball with an average of about 2700 rpm. Thats more than clay court players like Courier and Chang (2500 and 2300 on average respectively). Muster hit with an average of about 2800-2900 rpm, so he only had slightly more average spin on his forehand than Federer or Roddick. However, that is because he consistently hit with lots of spin on every shot. His spin maxes out at around 3750 rpm. Roddick's forehand, for instance, maxes out around 4200 rpm. Federer has never had much of a problem with Roddick's topspin, so what makes you think he would have trouble with Muster's spin that averages a bit more, but maxes out at less, and likely includes more sidespin than Roddick's (and thus is less heavy and less high).


Well you named a list and you had him higher than others mentioned, yet you won't explain why?


Read my OP. I said he was about even with those guys in my mind.

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 10:42 PM
Bruguera is probably the only guy to ever hit AS MUCH topspin as Nadal. As such, I bet Federer would have had trouble in an individual matchup with him too. Wasn't he a righty though? If so, it wouldnt be quite as bad for Federer.

There is a credibility problem here.

Clay Death
07-30-2009, 10:42 PM
CD Nadal is outrageously good on clay, but a lot of his success apart from movement is down to the heavy top spin he generates. Would he have generated the same amount of top spin had he used the racquets Borg used? I don't know about that, but then again I'm no expert when it comes to racquets.


what up general nadine. nadal is here and now. he doesnt play in the past unless we can hook him up with some sort of time machine and take him back to the 80`s.

if some buffoon here at gm is going to compare nadal with lendl then the burden of proof is on lendl, not on nadal.

its lendl that must be brought to the present. now with new and improved technologies and better training, could lendl have beaten the clay monster. i dont think so. its really no contest.

fed is significantly better than lendl and also has an unbreakable serve at the slams. fed is also the most complete player the world has ever seen. and yet he had one tiny weakness. it was that single hander. nadal tore it apart time and again.

sure lendl made 19 slam finals but he lost 11 of them. could he have matched the clay monster in the mental toughness department? the answer is clearly no. he also had a single hander. nadal would have eaten him alive.

one single weakness is all you need in tennis and a great player can exploit it to death. that is in fact what nadal has done to fed in 5 of 7 slam finals and a few other finals.

so the answer is no. lendl would stand no chance. certinly not in the slam finals.

Har-Tru
07-30-2009, 10:43 PM
CD Nadal is outrageously good on clay, but a lot of his success apart from movement is down to the heavy top spin he generates. Would he have generated the same amount of top spin had he used the racquets Borg used? I don't know about that, but then again I'm no expert when it comes to racquets.

No.

But a player plays in his time. I for one find these discussions a bit pointless.

Har-Tru
07-30-2009, 10:45 PM
what up general nadine. nadal is here and now. he doesnt play in the past unless we can hook him up with some sort of time machine and take him back to the 80`s.

if some buffoon here at gm is going to compare nadal with lendl then the burden of proof is on lendl, not on nadal.

its lendl that must be brought to the present. now with new and improved technologies and better training, could lendl have beaten the clay monster. i dont think so. its really no contest.

fed is significantly better than lendl and also has an unbreakable serve at the slams. fed is also the most complete player the world has ever seen. and yet he had one tiny weakness. it was that single hander. nadal tore it apart time and again.

sure lendl made 19 slam finals but he lost 11 of them. could he have matched the clay monster in the mental toughness department? the answer is clearly no. he also had a single hander. nadal would have eaten him alive.

one single weakness is all you need in tennis and a great player can exploit it to death. that is in fact what nadal has done to fed in 5 of 7 slam finals and a few other finals.

so the answer is no. lendl would stand no chance. certinly not in the slam finals.

I know you disagree, but Lendl's and Federer's backhands were/are not breakable and wobbly because they are single handers, but just because they are. Gaudio's bh, Corretja's, Costa's, Kuerten's... so many other clay courters had very good and solid single handers.

oz_boz
07-30-2009, 10:45 PM
Of course Nadal would have had a harder time hitting as much topspin had he played in the Borg era, but Borg still managed to put pretty much action on the ball with a tiny racket. I reckon Nadal and him should be fairly equal - both in success, matchup and heaviness of shots - had they played the same era, no matter which one. Fed would have faced less topspin but have had less chances of hitting great winners, so would still struggle against Rafa on clay (and against Borg whose bh would have bullied him).

Fed is not above Muster on clay, he might be on par with Courier though. Still, Roger would have had a bigger chance winning an RG final in the 90s with no "monster" around, but he'd have a harder time actually getting there, more able players on the dirt back then.

EDIT: and transferring people with time machines would go both ways IMO (overlooking the fact that it doesnt exist), Had Lendl been born 85, he'd be 3-4 cm taller and stronger with a modern training regime, so would absolutely have bothered Rafa.

Dini
07-30-2009, 10:45 PM
CD I only said what I said because of:

nobody from the past would have stood much of a chance against him. nobody.

You completely overlooked the fact that Nadal would probably have been a different player with not being able to generate as much top spin, hence why I started talking about racquets. Some people today have had a chance against him (very, very few) so let alone in the past when you had good clay courters like Borg.

And I agree Jose it's pointless, but I think it's a bit of an over exaggeration for lack of a better term to say that nobody would stand a chance.

MacTheKnife
07-30-2009, 10:52 PM
CD I only said what I said because of:



You completely overlooked the fact that Nadal would probably have been a different player with not being able to generate as much top spin, hence why I started talking about racquets. Some people today have had a chance against him (very, very few) so let alone in the past when you had good clay courters like Borg.

And I agree Jose it's pointless, but I think it's a bit of an over exaggeration for lack of a better term to say that nobody would stand a chance.

Agree completely, we've seen the somebody doesn't stand a chance argument many times, usually right before somebody gets their ass handed to them.

lessthanjake
07-30-2009, 10:52 PM
There is a credibility problem here.

I wasn't seriously asking whether Bruguera was right handed...If I really wanted to know, I could just wikipedia his name and find it instead of asking. It was a rhetorical question.

Clay Death
07-30-2009, 10:53 PM
CD I only said what I said because of:



You completely overlooked the fact that Nadal would probably have been a different player with not being able to generate as much top spin, hence why I started talking about racquets. Some people today have had a chance against him (very, very few) so let alone in the past when you had good clay courters like Borg.


well his knees are fucked now to be sure but his record on clay for the last 5 years and with the way he has been able to dominate on clay, it is readily clear that he is the ultimate challenge on clay. this guy has lost like 5 matches on dirt in 5 years. that is called complete and utter domination in my book and everybody else`s book as well.

most of the players and nearly all of the past tennis greats are saying exactly the same thing. i of course do not have to take anybody`s word for it.

i can see it for myself.

so my position remains this: nobody from the past would stand much of a chance against him. its the evolution of the sport and the evolution of the athlete.

let me put it this way. borg would be a far better comparison than lendl since he was so dominant on clay himself. clay monster would destroy borg today.

MacTheKnife
07-30-2009, 10:55 PM
I know you disagree, but Lendl's and Federer's backhands were/are not breakable and wobbly because they are single handers, but just because they are. Gaudio's bh, Corretja's, Costa's, Kuerten's... so many other clay courters had very good and solid single handers.

I agree too. Also, this is the weakest clay court era in terms of depth of solid clay court players I remember. A lot of reasons for that, all discussed on other threads, no need to rehash it here.

Dini
07-30-2009, 10:57 PM
CD and I'm not saying anything different about his credibility or his amazing record on clay. But you can never make things out to be certain when talking about how he'd fair against a peak Borg with wooden racquets, for example. With what we know, the amount of topspin that Nadal generates today is hard to generate using a wooden racquet so one of his main strengths on the surface would be reduced slightly - I think it's pretty fair to say that but in the end assumptions can be made which is fine but ultimately pointless.

lessthanjake
07-30-2009, 10:57 PM
I agree too. Also, this is the weakest clay court era in terms of depth of solid clay court players I remember. A lot of reasons for that, all discussed on other threads, no need to rehash it here.

I think that's silly. There are less specialists now, for sure, and the players who are best on hard courts are also best on clay. But that is not a function of the fact that this is a weak era on clay. It is a function of the fact that tennis has changed to be almost exclusively a baseline game. This means that there is no reason to specialize on clay. If you practice your baseline skills and are therefore good on clay, you will be good on all surfaces.

I think if anything this makes today's era stronger on clay because basically every player has a game that translates very well on clay.

Clay Death
07-30-2009, 10:58 PM
I know you disagree, but Lendl's and Federer's backhands were/are not breakable and wobbly because they are single handers, but just because they are. Gaudio's bh, Corretja's, Costa's, Kuerten's... so many other clay courters had very good and solid single handers.


i hear ya general jose but somebody like the clay monster has proven that he can break single handers down.

we have some monster single handers today but just how much success have they had against the clay monster in the last 5 years. it took totally fucked up knees for somebody to finally beat him. i mean the guy is on the sidelines and cant even play now.

its the relentless topspin cyclones of death that never end and never stop coming that break those single handers down.

and i dont dispute for a second that all those single handers that you mentioned were great backhands.

Har-Tru
07-30-2009, 10:59 PM
I agree too. Also, this is the weakest clay court era in terms of depth of solid clay court players I remember. A lot of reasons for that, all discussed on other threads, no need to rehash it here.

Yes, we don't want to bring a thread off-topic in here. That would be a disgrace for MTF.

But yes, there are so many players today that play (and succeed...) on clay by playing exactly the same way they play on hard or grass. Adjustments are expensive these days.

Arkulari
07-30-2009, 10:59 PM
CD: what do you think of Roger on clay, apart of Rafa of course, how he fares against other players? :)

Har-Tru
07-30-2009, 11:01 PM
But CD, with what technology would Nadal-Borg play? It changes things completely. That's why I am so reluctant to do these inter-time comparisons. There's way too many woulds and what ifs.

Clay Death
07-30-2009, 11:03 PM
Agree completely, we've seen the somebody doesn't stand a chance argument many times, usually right before somebody gets their ass handed to them.

right. and you really believe in your heart of hearts that lendl would have stood much of a chance in final against the clay monster at roland garros.

fed is twice the player lendl ever was. lendl lost 11 of 19 slam finals he was in. i liked what i have seen and read about him but he is no match for fed on any surface. every thing lend could do, fed does it twice as good and he also has a near unbreakable serve at the slams.

and yet fed---having the most complete game of any player in history-- has not been able to deal with nadal but these these others from the distant past would.

right. i need to smoke what you are smoking. it must be good.

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 11:04 PM
I wasn't seriously asking whether Bruguera was right handed...If I really wanted to know, I could just wikipedia his name and find it instead of asking. It was a rhetorical question.

Nice try, but not happening. You should have known that, if you actually watched him play in his peak or at all. I mean still haven't answered the question about when you started watching the game?

It was like the Roddick/Becker thing you implied in the other thread, the classic bean counter and the what ifs.

The rest of the essay doesn't really need much more than a summary.

- I already mentioned the advancement of technology and physiology, so why go into it much more, when they have been taken into account. When they have then the respective match up comes into play. Hence the Muster thing isn't relevant, Fed is going to hit less spin the 90s and Muster would hit more now, just basic sense. In other words you can't have one without the other.

- Fed had won Hamburg already by 2003 and was performing well on clay, no excuse there. His backhand struggled to handle Mantilla who plays a style that doesn't really exist currently due to the advancement of the game as it is.

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 11:06 PM
It's like is trying to transport a player in time to see what happens and then using that hypothesis as the foundation for an entire argument.

Clay Death
07-30-2009, 11:10 PM
But CD, with what technology would Nadal-Borg play? It changes things completely. That's why I am so reluctant to do these inter-time comparisons. There's way too many woulds and what ifs.


its the extreme amount of topspin that he generates general jose. and its not the racquets and the strings entirely. if that was the case, they all would be trying to make that happen.

i mean his rpm`s on his forehand--on the average--are about 3500 which is sick. nobody has ever come close to that type of racquet head speed to be able to actually generate that lind of rpm`s on the ball. nobody. i think he has even gone past 4500+ at times.

he is fucked for now but his movement on clay is the best in history. the guy has just as much or better speed than the fastest cornerbacks in the NFL.

you cant buy these things or create them. some of this is just gifts from the gods.

nobody in the history of the sport has been able to hit with so much topspin and such a heavy topspin for that matter. that takes its toll.

Clay Death
07-30-2009, 11:15 PM
CD: what do you think of Roger on clay, apart of Rafa of course, how he fares against other players? :)

good question general natalia. i have to go on his record. apart from healthy and fit clay montster, i would have to go with Fed. this only pertains to the current era.

he has proven to be just too tough on all surfaces, let on clay.

i keep thinking that some of the others like djokovic, d-pot, and possibly even murray may offer him some stiff competition on clay but i have not seen it yet.

d-pot did go 5 sets against him but he lacks the fitness and the forecourt game to pressure fed. so same results next time as well.

d-po also doesnt have the serve that fed brings to the slams.

Matt01
07-30-2009, 11:22 PM
fed is twice the player lendl ever was. lendl lost 11 of 19 slam finals he was in. i liked what i have seen and read about him but he is no match for fed on any surface. every thing lend could do, fed does it twice as good and he also has a near unbreakable serve at the slams.

and yet fed---having the most complete game of any player in history-- has not been able to deal with nadal but these these others from the distant past would.

right. i need to smoke what you are smoking. it must be good.


So basically you are saying that Fed is twice the player Lendl was (which is already ridiculous IMO) and since Nadal owns Fed in Slam finals, that's because Lendl woudn't stand a chance against Nadal? Sorry, CD, I'm a huge fan of the Clay Monster but that logic is twisted in so many ways I don't even know where to start, so in this case you must be the one smoking here.

ORGASMATRON
07-30-2009, 11:25 PM
So basically you are saying that Fed is twice the player Lendl was (which is already ridiculous IMO) and since Nadal owns Fed in Slam finals, that's because Lendl woudn't stand a chance against Nadal? Sorry, CD, I'm a huge fan of the Clay Monster but that logic is twisted in so many ways I don't even know where to start, so in this case you must be the one smoking here.

Actually what he is saying makes peRFect sense. Its just that you and logick dont fit in teh same sentence.

Clay Death
07-30-2009, 11:29 PM
So basically you are saying that Fed is twice the player Lendl was (which is already ridiculous IMO) and since Nadal owns Fed in Slam finals, that's because Lendl woudn't stand a chance against Nadal? Sorry, CD, I'm a huge fan of the Clay Monster but that logic is twisted in so many ways I don't even know where to start, so in this case you must be the one smoking here.


well he is not exactly twice as good as lendl but i was trying to make a point.

11 losses in 19 slam finals does leave me with doubts about his mental toughness at the big dance.


all i said was that lendl would not stand a chance against the clay monster at a final at roland garros. you saw or read what borg did to him there. lendl did manage to get 5 sets out of borg once but still he was never going to beat borg there. the score in the last set was 6-1.

in any case, we will talk more later about this. i appreciate your input and your ideas. we are all having fun here anyway.

i am not smoking anything yet but i may have to start.

Har-Tru
07-30-2009, 11:31 PM
Actually what he is saying makes peRFect sense. Its just that you and logick dont fit in teh same sentence.

look who's talking. :lol:

Lendl didn't lose 11 slam finals because he was mentally fragile. He just wasn't that good.

Matt01
07-30-2009, 11:38 PM
all i said was that lendl would not stand a chance against the clay monster at a final at roland garros.


OK then. I can't really disagree here. :)


Actually what he is saying makes peRFect sense. Its just that you and logick dont fit in teh same sentence.


Learn how to spell the word "logic" and then we can talk again. Good luck.

MatchFederer
07-30-2009, 11:40 PM
Actually what he is saying makes peRFect sense. Its just that you and logick dont fit in teh same sentence.

I LIK WUT U DID DERE...

.. translates to: I like what you did there.

ORGASMATRON
07-30-2009, 11:41 PM
OK then. I can't really disagree here. :)





Learn how to spell the word "logic" and then we can talk again. Good luck.

I dont give a shit about my spelling and no we wont talk again.

Matt01
07-30-2009, 11:43 PM
Lendl didn't lose 11 slam finals because he was mentally fragile. He just wasn't that good.


Lendl lost his first 4 Slam finals and then won 8 out the next 14 Slam finals. He was a great player, not quite in the same league as Federer but still very good.

Clay Death
07-30-2009, 11:44 PM
I dont give a shit about my spelling and no we wont talk again.

like he really has some desperate need to talk with you ospasmatroll.

you talk as if you are important. i know of single-celled bacteria called cyanobacteria that make more sense.


there is only one thing you know. you know damn well that you know nothing. and you know it so fluently.

MatchFederer
07-30-2009, 11:45 PM
In boxing people often refer to GOAT lists based on achievement and sometimes lists based on head to head.

Roger is undoubtedly an excellent player on the clay courts, in terms of achievements he is probably top 10 in the open era.

Head to head, I would probably have him slightly higher. I would probably end up favouring him against some other guys if they could have somehow met in an RG final. In terms of achievements he is probably top 10 but I concur with Wilander when he says that in terms of tennis level, Federer's on clay is probably top 5.

Har-Tru
07-30-2009, 11:45 PM
Lendl lost his first 4 Slam finals and then won 8 out the next 14 Slam finals. He was a great player, not quite in the same league as Federer but still very good.

he was a great player, but not a genius. He made his living out of amazing fitness and hard work mostly.

MatchFederer
07-30-2009, 11:45 PM
Lendl lost his first 4 Slam finals and then won 8 out the next 14 Slam finals. He was a great player, not quite in the same league as Federer but still very good.

If Lendl was great that what is Federer???

















I am just taking the pizz.

Matt01
07-30-2009, 11:46 PM
I dont give a shit about my spelling and no we wont talk again.


Thank god :lol:
Can't wait for the day you get permabanned :)

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 11:47 PM
he was a great player, but not a genius. He made his living out of amazing fitness and hard work mostly.

He was one of the innovators of modern tennis, paying attention to diet, the work ethic and using as much scientific shit as needed to improve his performance.

Only player Lendl lost to in a GS final was Cash that wasn't a champ, the others Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Becker and Wilander were.

MatchFederer
07-30-2009, 11:52 PM
He was one of the innovators of modern tennis, paying attention to diet, the work ethic and using as much scientific shit as needed to improve his performance.

Only player Lendl lost to in a GS final was Cash that wasn't a champ, the others Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Becker and Wilander were.

Do you feel that based on the era he played in that Lendl has any sort of serious argument for GOAT of the Open Era? Or do you feel that he absolutely, definitely pales in comparison to Sampras, Federer, Borg?

Har-Tru
07-30-2009, 11:53 PM
Do you feel that based on the era he played in that Lendl has any sort of serious argument for GOAT of the Open Era? Or do you feel that he absolutely, definitely pales in comparison to Sampras, Federer, Borg?

Sorry to butt in but my answer is no, he has no place in that discussion.

And I do like Lendl.

Clay Death
07-30-2009, 11:54 PM
He was one of the innovators of modern tennis, paying attention to diet, the work ethic and using as much scientific shit as needed to improve his performance.

Only player Lendl lost to in a GS final was Cash that wasn't a champ, the others Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Becker and Wilander were.

your points do hold some water aj but i have to side with general jose.

he basically made himself the player he became by a ridiculous work ethic and by taking his fitness higher than any other tennis player before him. only borg was fitter but borg had some direct gifts from the gods as well.

borg was blessed with amazing speed and with fairly high vo2max (maximal oxygen uptake).

guys like borg, johhny mac, nasty, fed, and the clay monster have been called naturally gifted.

ORGASMATRON
07-30-2009, 11:54 PM
I think Lendl had no chance against Rafa on clay, while Fed has won a couple of times and come close many times.

MatchFederer
07-30-2009, 11:55 PM
your points do hold some water aj but i have to side with general jose.

he basically made himself the player he became by a ridiculous work ethic and by taking his fitness higher than any other tennis player before him. only borg was fitter but borg had some direct gifts from the gods as well.

borg was blessed with amazing speed and with fairly high vo2max (maximal oxygen uptake).

guys like borg, johhny mac, nasty, fed, and the clay monster have been called naturally gifted.

Do you have figures for this? It was fairly high and not very high?

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 11:56 PM
Do you feel that based on the era he played in that Lendl has any sort of serious argument for GOAT of the Open Era? Or do you feel that he absolutely, definitely pales in comparison to Sampras, Federer, Borg?

Lendl is in that second tier, nothing wrong with that at all, but the whole GOAT thing doesn't interest me, but I wouldn't have him there, yes he is underrated, but not GOAT.

Action Jackson
07-30-2009, 11:57 PM
your points do hold some water aj but i have to side with general jose.

he basically made himself the player he became by a ridiculous work ethic and by taking his fitness higher than any other tennis player before him. only borg was fitter but borg had some direct gifts from the gods as well.

borg was blessed with amazing speed and with fairly high vo2max (maximal oxygen uptake).

guys like borg, johhny mac, nasty, fed, and the clay monster have been called naturally gifted.

I wasn't disagreeing with him at all, he got the most out of his natural abilities, by focusing on other areas.

MacTheKnife
07-31-2009, 12:45 AM
he was a great player, but not a genius. He made his living out of amazing fitness and hard work mostly.

This has a very familiar ring to it.

Sorry to butt in but my answer is no, he has no place in that discussion.

And I do like Lendl.

No, but he is one of the two most underrated players around.


Do you have figures for this? It was fairly high and not very high?

I don't know about that, but Borgs resting heart rate was measured at 35 beats per minute. We were all trying to get our heart rates even close to that at the time. Never did btw.

lessthanjake
07-31-2009, 12:51 AM
It was like the Roddick/Becker thing you implied in the other thread, the classic bean counter and the what ifs.


This isnt even remotely similar to that. That was all based on speculation from both sides of the argument. This is fact. If Federer played in a previous era, people would NOT be able to consistently hit the shots that Nadal does that give Federer trouble. Older rackets don't allow that to work.

- I already mentioned the advancement of technology and physiology, so why go into it much more, when they have been taken into account. When they have then the respective match up comes into play. Hence the Muster thing isn't relevant, Fed is going to hit less spin the 90s and Muster would hit more now, just basic sense. In other words you can't have one without the other.


Youre sidetracked if you think I was talking about a potential head to head between Muster and Federer in today's era. Of course Muster would hit with more spin nowadays and Federer would hit with less spin in the 90s. Go back to the origin of this argument though.

-You said that only one person can hit it high enough to Federer's backhand today and that that was a sign that Federer would be weaker in the past, implying that a lot of players from the past hit shots like that, and that players dont do that nowadays.

-My response was that that is not true. Federer's weakness is actually exposed due to modern technology, because the immense spin it takes to expose Federer's backhand was much harder to create in the past. With older technology, players were not able to consistently hit a shot that could have gone out of his comfort zone like Nadal can now.

-Your response was that players like Muster, Corretja etc etc put a lot of spin on the ball too, and that those shots would have given Federer trouble just like Nadal's does now.

-I responded by showing that Muster put similar amounts of spin on his shots as Roddick does now, and obviously Federer has no problem with Roddick's spin. The point of that response was to show that someone like Muster, who had one of the heavier, more spinny balls on tour in the 1990s clearly could not impart enough spin that it would have gone out of Federer's comfort zone.

-Your response now was that Muster would hit with more spin now and Federer would hit with less spin in the 90s.

-My response to that is that that is true but irrelevant. My point was that if Federer were playing in the 90s against Muster, Muster's shot (or anyone elses minus Bruguera) would not have gone out of his comfort zone (his comfort zone would not get smaller in a different era) because it would only hop up about as much as Roddick's shot does. This goes directly against your assessment that Federer's backhand wouldve been more easily attackable in a previous era.

Basically, you said that in previous eras, players played games that would have broken down Federer's backhand. I disagree because players could NOT impart as much spin previously. If Federer were playing in a previous era, no one (except maybe Bruguera) would have been able to break down his backhand in the way Nadal does it.

- Fed had won Hamburg already by 2003 and was performing well on clay, no excuse there. His backhand struggled to handle Mantilla who plays a style that doesn't really exist currently due to the advancement of the game as it is.
__________________

He was nowhere near his peak on clay, despite winning Hamburg the year befre. His 15-4 record on clay that year (and 12-5 the year he won Hamburg) was worse than any subsequent year, and he wouldnt make a major splash at Roland Garros until 2005.

It is sort of irrelevant anyways though. That is just one match. I did not see that match, but everyone's backhand (or forehand or any shot) breaks down sometimes. To use ONE match of a non-peak Federer to illustrate your point is just a weak argument.

I mean still haven't answered the question about when you started watching the game?

I'm sure youve been watching tennis longer than me. It doesn't matter.

MacTheKnife
07-31-2009, 01:13 AM
I'm sure youve been watching tennis longer than me. It doesn't matter.


:haha: Don't even know how to respond to this one... Yea, wiki, google and youtube tell all..

lessthanjake
07-31-2009, 01:21 AM
:haha: Don't even know how to respond to this one... Yea, wiki, google and youtube tell all..

It is not relevant to this issue though. It is simple physics/facts.

Better modern rackets = able to hit with more topspin = able to hit a forehand with spin, depth, and pace like Nadal's.

Worse rackets in the past = less topspin possible = less able to hit a shot like Nadal can now = unable to hit the one type of shot that really hurts Federer


Anyways, the idea that those who have been watching tennis for longer automatically know more about it is silly. That is a factor in knowledge, but it is not everything, and one cant just say "Ive been watching tennis longer than you, so I am clearly right." It takes more than that to make a real argument.

MacTheKnife
07-31-2009, 01:29 AM
It is not relevant to this issue though. It is simple physics/facts.

Better modern rackets = able to hit with more topspin = able to hit a forehand with spin, depth, and pace like Nadal's.

Worse rackets in the past = less topspin possible = less able to hit a shot like Nadal can now = unable to hit the one type of shot that really hurts Federer


Anyways, the idea that those who have been watching tennis for longer automatically know more about it is silly. That is a factor in knowledge, but it is not everything, and one cant just say "Ive been watching tennis longer than you, so I am clearly right." It takes more than that to make a real argument.

I have no doubt whatsoever that you honestly believe that. I know I did when I was young. One day 30 or 40 years from now, someone will be telling you about 2044 vs 2009 and you'll be going wtf are they even talking about. That is if you stick with it that long..

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 01:34 AM
I have no doubt whatsoever that you honestly believe that. I know I did when I was young. One day 30 or 40 years from now, someone will be telling you about 2044 vs 2009 and you'll be going wtf are they even talking about. That is if you stick with it that long..

Like I said with the Bruguera foible, there is a serious lack of credibility. Har-Tru and I don't agree on much, but I know when he is talking about certain players, especially ones that played in the 80s and 90s, I know at least he has watched them and understands their games without having to use certain things and act like a bean counter to cover it up.

It's like a female menstrual cycle, I don't talk about that, because it's not something I actually have a clue about the physiological.

lessthanjake
07-31-2009, 01:35 AM
I have no doubt whatsoever that you honestly believe that. I know I did when I was young. One day 30 or 40 years from now, someone will be telling you about 2044 vs 2009 and you'll be going wtf are they even talking about. That is if you stick with it that long..

Experience watching tennis DOES give one a unique set of knowledge. I admit that. BUT it doesnt make one better able to discern how much spin and heaviness were on shots between eras. That is rather hard to tell when you're not the professional playing.

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 01:37 AM
IAnyways, the idea that those who have been watching tennis for longer automatically know more about it is silly. That is a factor in knowledge, but it is not everything, and one cant just say "Ive been watching tennis longer than you, so I am clearly right." It takes more than that to make a real argument.

When you don't actually know what you are talking about, because you can't relate to the subject matter, through various reasons that have already been explained in detail, then that's a problem.

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 01:44 AM
Basically, you said that in previous eras, players played games that would have broken down Federer's backhand. I disagree because players could NOT impart as much spin previously. If Federer were playing in a previous era, no one (except maybe Bruguera) would have been able to break down his backhand in the way Nadal does it.


Basically you don't have a clue, because you hadn't watched any of the players mentioned and don't understand how clay tennis was at that time. You assume Federer is going to play the same way in the mid 90s as he does now? But aren't going to allow the fact that the type of game he has problems with isn't around at the moment and refusing to acknowledge that these players wouldn't benefit from increased technology, which lead to the original point.

It's like is trying to transport a player in time to see what happens and then using that hypothesis as the foundation for an entire argument.

ORGASMATRON
07-31-2009, 01:49 AM
Knowing more cos you watched tennis for a longer time is just nonesense. I started watching tennis when Becker first won Wimby, so thankfully i didnt see those clowns with their wooden racquets. Fed would have owned all those players, wooden racquets or not.

Arkulari
07-31-2009, 01:53 AM
http://blog.pucp.edu.pe/media/497/20070902-Facepalm1.jpg

Serenidad
07-31-2009, 01:57 AM
Federer encompasses a true all-around player. He has a decent proficiency in everything, but on a clay court he basically plays the same tennis he does everywhere else except a few small modifications i.e. dropshotting more frequently.

At the end of the day, Federer in the sense of the archetype of clay court tennis is only slightly above average. He definitely isn't Top 5 or maybe even Top 10 of the best clay courters ever.

Sapeod
07-31-2009, 01:57 AM
This is ACC quality stuff too. I smell termite season coming. Everybody get a gun.

guga2120
07-31-2009, 02:00 AM
I'd like a confirmation: anyone seriously thinks Djokovic is better than Federer on clay?

He's been better for the last 2 years. He has not been better overall. Federer was the 2nd best player in 2005-6. Roger, won Paris b/c the 2 best clay courters killed each other in Madrid, and then he got one of the easiest draws in the history of tennis.

Arkulari
07-31-2009, 02:01 AM
Dani :lol:

http://upload.ecvv.com/upload/Product/200801/200742821554416454_Termite_Buster.jpg

wait a sec: how many RG finals do Djokovic have to his name? has he lost to anyone not named Nadal on his prime on RG? 1 MS on clay when both the top seeds were out... :scratch:

lessthanjake
07-31-2009, 02:02 AM
Basically you don't have a clue, because you hadn't watched any of the players mentioned and don't understand how clay tennis was at that time. You assume Federer is going to play the same way in the mid 90s as he does now? But aren't going to allow the fact that the type of game he has problems with isn't around at the moment and refusing to acknowledge that these players wouldn't benefit from increased technology, which lead to the original point.

It's like is trying to transport a player in time to see what happens and then using that hypothesis as the foundation for an entire argument.

I have seen plenty of matches from the 1970s and 1980s and I started watching tennis in the 1990s. I don't have such a little amount of viewing that I can't understand something. I was just admitting that you have probably watched tennis for longer than me (I assume since you asked the question that you have been watching tennis for many decades).

What is the "type of game he has problems with?" To me it is two things. He has problems with fast moving defensive players who can get to his attacking shots. He also has problems with really high, heavy, fast, and deep shots to his backhand, like the one Nadal uses. Fast moving defensive players exist in every era and those players would always be troublesome for him in any era. However, if Federer were playing in a previous era, racket technology was such that players would not be able to create the shot that Nadal creates now. As such, that second weakness would not come into play. Federer's backhand really only consistently breaks down with the EXTREME shot of Nadal. No one else breaks down his backhand so consistently because no one else puts such EXTREME spin on the ball. In the past, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to put that sort of extreme spin on the ball, thus IMPOSSIBLE to consistently break down his backhand like Nadal does.

And I dont know why you keep talking about older players benefitting from increased technology if they were in this era. I am not at all arguing that point. I am arguing against the idea that placing Federer back in a different era would result in his backhand getting ripped apart. That seems ridiculous as his backhand ONLY gets ripped apart by a player who has an extreme shot that could NOT have been replicated in the past.

I also don't know why you keep saying that Federer would put less spin on the ball in the past too. That is obviously the case, but it is completely irrelevant to the argument. It has nothing to do with whether Federer's weakness is a product of modern technology or not.


EDIT: Also, let it be pointed out that I didn't start this whole idea of saying how Federer would fare in previous eras. You did, when you started essentially saying that the style of decades past would accentuate Federer's weakness.

ORGASMATRON
07-31-2009, 02:05 AM
He's been better for the last 2 years. He has not been better overall. Federer was the 2nd best player in 2005-6. Roger, won Paris b/c the 2 best clay courters killed each other in Madrid, and then he got one of the easiest draws in the history of tennis.

You are one delusional Gugatard. I hate that bitch.

Sapeod
07-31-2009, 02:05 AM
lessthanjake, how much time do you take up making these posts. Hell, have you bathed your hand in ice yet :wavey:

lessthanjake
07-31-2009, 02:10 AM
lessthanjake, how much time do you take up making these posts. Hell, have you bathed your hand in ice yet :wavey:

Haha I did A LOT of debate for many years. Arguments come to me quickly, and I type quite fast too. It actually doesnt take all that long.

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 02:11 AM
Why the essay jake, no need, you can't comprehend certain things that are clearly obvious in an attempt to overhype Federer and with a clear lack of credibility as pulled up on already.

Considering currently no one plays the heavy topspin game like Nadal does, he has taken what was played commonly in the 90s and adjusted to the current time, but if you actually watched some tennis, then that would be obvious, though maybe not.

Comparing generations is useless, but you still want to do it, without all the facts, keep clowning.

Sapeod
07-31-2009, 02:11 AM
Haha I did A LOT of debate for many years. Arguments come to me quickly, and I type quite fast too. It actually doesnt take all that long.
Well, still don't make essays all the time. Don't push your arms to the limit were they'll have to be amputated.

habibko
07-31-2009, 02:22 AM
http://welikeitfresh.com/files/2008/12/bunny-thread-relevant-to-my-interests.jpg

lessthanjake
07-31-2009, 02:27 AM
Why the essay jake, no need, you can't comprehend certain things that are clearly obvious in an attempt to overhype Federer and with a clear lack of credibility as pulled up on already.

Considering currently no one plays the heavy topspin game like Nadal does, he has taken what was played commonly in the 90s and adjusted to the current time, but if you actually watched some tennis, then that would be obvious, though maybe not.

Comparing generations is useless, but you still want to do it, without all the facts, keep clowning.

The second someone says stuff to the effect of "You just obviously can't comprehend the truth. It should be obvious to you, but you just keep being wrong" they have clearly run out of an argument.


Anyways, I REALIZE that people played the heavy topspin game a lot on clay in the past. The thing is, that what was considered heavy topspin in the past is different than what is considered heavy topspin now. What was considered heavy topspin in the past would NOT consistently jump up above Federer's comfort zone like Nadal's topspin does. As such, I do not think that Federer's backhand would be broken down easily by those heavy topspin players if he played in decades past.

If you put those heavy topspin players into today's game though, then yeah, they would probably give Federer a good bit of trouble. That is agreed. But that is actually my point. What I have been saying all along is that Federer's weakness is a large degree created by the possibilities of modern technology.

Where do you disagree with that?

____________________________________

You seem to be lamenting the fact that players do not play that game more against Federer nowadays. If they did, they might beat him more on clay, true, but players play differently in different eras because of changes in technology, fitness, surfaces etc etc. I believe Federer would do well in any era on clay.

To me, it amounts to this:

1. Federer would have done well on clay in previous eras because his major clay court weakness (inability to deal with Nadal's extreme type of spinny shot to his backhand) would be impossible to replicate. So although more players would play the type of game Nadal plays, it would not devastate him on clay like Nadal does.
2. Federer HAS done well on clay in his actual era because it has not made sense for many players to play like Nadal.
3. If lots of players DID play Nadal's type of game nowadays, Federer would be in trouble. But the fact is that for various reasons, there has never been an era of tennis with modern racket technology AND a lot of defensive, topspin oriented players. As such, Federer's clay court game translates pretty well to any era.

Blondie1985
07-31-2009, 02:33 AM
he's the best

guga2120
07-31-2009, 03:02 AM
You are one delusional Gugatard. I hate that bitch.

That bitch, with a tore up hip, blew the clay master, Federer, off the court.

Mimi
07-31-2009, 03:06 AM
That bitch, with a tore up hip, blew the clay master, Federer, off the court.

you are right :p

Arkulari
07-31-2009, 03:10 AM
I wouldn't dream about putting Guga over Roger on clay, but in Roger's defense he wasn't as good in 2004 on clay as has been since 2006 ;)

Besides, the RG courts still played a decent speed (slow enough) back then, so it counted in Guga's favor as well (compare those courts with the ones this year, someone like Toad wouldn't have beaten Rafa in a decent clay court :shrug: )

guga2120
07-31-2009, 03:14 AM
Besides, the RG courts still played a decent speed (slow enough) back then, so it counted in Guga's favor as well (compare those courts with the ones this year

Didn't seem to bother him in Hamburg in 2004 against Coria, which is actually slower than Paris.

Sapeod
07-31-2009, 03:15 AM
That bitch, with a tore up hip, blew the clay master, Federer, off the court.
I thought bitches were female dogs. Kuerten wasn't a dog. Well he was a dog, but you get the picture...

Arkulari
07-31-2009, 03:17 AM
Didn't seem to bother him in Hamburg in 2004 against Coria, which is actually slower than Paris.

yes, but Guga >>>>>>>>> Coria on clay IMO ;)

and he seemed to be so at home at RG, it was the surface that definitely suited his game the most ;)

not saying that Roger is a better claycourter than Guga, just that it wasn't the Roger who defeated Rafa on two clay tournaments and reached many RG finals ;)

still peak Guga would still defeat peak Roger on clay :)

Mimi
07-31-2009, 03:20 AM
I thought bitches were female dogs. Kuerten wasn't a dog. Well he was a dog, but you get the picture...
its your friend ruanz who called Guga bitch, not guga2120 :wavey:

Sapeod
07-31-2009, 03:24 AM
its your friend ruanz who called Guga bitch, not guga2120 :wavey:
I know :crazy:

swebright
07-31-2009, 03:29 AM
He's the best behind Nadal (these years). Is Nadal the best clay court player that has ever lived? Or, it's just there's no other claycourt specialists. I remember that Roland Garros is always won by the "real" clay people with a few exception like Agassi. All the finalists were lesser known players on other surfaces and the RG champions never did good on other surfaces.

Muster is better than Rafa? Guga?

Arkulari
07-31-2009, 03:32 AM
IMO Rafa > Guga > Muster

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 04:17 AM
I wouldn't dream about putting Guga over Roger on clay, but in Roger's defense he wasn't as good in 2004 on clay as has been since 2006 ;)

Besides, the RG courts still played a decent speed (slow enough) back then, so it counted in Guga's favor as well (compare those courts with the ones this year, someone like Toad wouldn't have beaten Rafa in a decent clay court :shrug: )

Funny shit, don't use the speed excuse. Federer prefers it slower as the ball doesn't bounce as high, hence his great success in Hamburg.

He doesn't play any players like Guga these days, this selective memory isn't a good thing.

Sapeod
07-31-2009, 04:28 AM
Borg> Rafa> Lendl> Vilas> Kuerten> Federer> Muster> Burguera> Agassi> Gomez> Shit> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MTF

Pretty clear IMO

MalwareDie
07-31-2009, 04:33 AM
Kuerten>Lendl

Arkulari
07-31-2009, 04:40 AM
Funny shit, don't use the speed excuse. Federer prefers it slower as the ball doesn't bounce as high, hence his great success in Hamburg.

He doesn't play any players like Guga these days, this selective memory isn't a good thing.
your point could be applied to Rome for example, which being a fast clay court bounces higher ;)

somehow Hamburg suited his game better, which is a bit strange since he prefers and have had more success on other surfaces, also is quite strange that he succeeded in a high bouncing court like TMS Tiriac :scratch:

I think the point I was trying to get across is that Guga defeated Roger in RG 2004, yes, but it's not like Roger is a clay court mug like some people were trying to say just for that defeat :shrug:

He's the second best on this generation and has managed to snatch big clay court titles even with Rafa on the way, so to me that's enough ;)

MalwareDie
07-31-2009, 04:46 AM
somehow Hamburg suited his game better, which is a bit strange since he prefers and have had more success on other surfaces

You're not paying attention. AJ mentioned that Federer prefers the lower bounce of Hamburg, which means less backhand shanks. Hamburg suits Federer more than the other clay tournaments.

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 04:47 AM
your point could be applied to Rome for example, which being a fast clay court bounces higher ;)

somehow Hamburg suited his game better, which is a bit strange since he prefers and have had more success on other surfaces

I think the point I was trying to get across is that Guga defeated Roger in RG 2004, yes, but it's not like Roger is a clay court mug like some people were trying to say just for that defeat :shrug:

He's the second best on this generation and has managed to snatch big clay court titles even with Rafa on the way, so to me that's enough ;)

Your point is you used false logic. It's simple if the air is colder and heavier and the ball is not going to bounce as high, therefore more suitable to Federer. It's not strange at all, makes perfect sense as to why Federer did well there.

Saying Fed is better than Guga on clay is funny shit. Guga won all the big clay events at least once, something only Nadal and Lendl have done. Fed isn't close to the big 5.

Look what he is playing against, but that would be too much examination, totally different that when he getting beaten by past it guys like Guga, Al Costa and Mantilla. Using the last point to its logical conclusion, that would mean Roddick would have won 3 Wimbledons without Federer being there, if that were the case, he still wouldn't clean Becker or Edberg's boots.

The Fed goggles are too much.

Arkulari
07-31-2009, 04:59 AM
if you read what I posted before, I said I wouldn't put Roger ahead of Guga in a clay court manner, I just say that he's the second best clay courter of his generation behind Rafa ;)

there are tons of players that can be considered better claycourters than Roger: Guga, Rafa, Borg, etc

yes, but Guga >>>>>>>>> Coria on clay IMO ;)

and he seemed to be so at home at RG, it was the surface that definitely suited his game the most ;)

not saying that Roger is a better claycourter than Guga, just that it wasn't the Roger who defeated Rafa on two clay tournaments and reached many RG finals ;)

peak Guga would still defeat peak Roger on clay :)

MacTheKnife
07-31-2009, 04:59 AM
Every time there's one these threads, I challenge people to name 5 really good clay court players playing today. No one has been able to do it. Or at least they are ashamed to put that in writing. That the difference, Fedal might have to beat one decent clay courter, but not 2 or 3 each to win an event. The predominate style played today on clay is what I call a HC hybrid version.

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 05:02 AM
Every time there's one these threads, I challenge people to name 5 really good clay court players playing today. No one has been able to do it. Or at least they are ashamed to put that in writing. That the difference, Fedal might have to beat one decent clay courter, but not 2 or 3 each to win an event. The predominate style played today on clay is what I call a HC hybrid version.

Claycourt tennis today is hardcourt tennis with sliding.

Mrs FedEx, I wouldn't dream about putting Guga over Roger on clay. That means you are rating Federer higher than Guga on clay, spin not needed, nice try at editing the post as well.

Arkulari
07-31-2009, 05:06 AM
yes Glen, that comes from the surface homogenization which in turn makes the players play basically the same game all year long :shrug:

that's why there aren't many decent claycourters around, because everybody pretty much moves like on the rest of surfaces and movement is key to be a good claycourter :shrug:

AJ, let's make it simple: Guga is much better in a claycourt point of view that Roger, but Roger is not a clay mug, that's all I wanted to say :shrug:

Peak Guga would have still defeated peak Roger at RG IMO, Roger did manage to take him down in Hamburg, but one thing are MS and another are GS and Guga was very strong at RG on his peak ;)

Clay Death
07-31-2009, 05:24 AM
Every time there's one these threads, I challenge people to name 5 really good clay court players playing today. No one has been able to do it. Or at least they are ashamed to put that in writing. That the difference, Fedal might have to beat one decent clay courter, but not 2 or 3 each to win an event. The predominate style played today on clay is what I call a HC hybrid version.




the game has changed and it continues to evolve. you might have one or 2 at best that can win a match or 2 only on clay and who have difficlutlies on other surfaces but the days of a surface specialists are long gone. that much is clear even to the golfers who know nothing about tennis.

take just the clay monster for instance. yes he has been totally dominant on clay but he has proven that he can win on other surfaces.

he has beaten Fed at wimbledon on grass and he has a won a slam on hard courts. he also has numerous masters shields on 3 diffferent surfaces. so even a clay court master--the clay monster himself--can hardly be called a clay court specialist. he resents being called a clay court master and has said so on many occasions.

fed too has said many times that there is simply no such thing as a clay court specialist. and we dont have to take his word for it if we are just willing to open our eyes. there is no such thing as a clay court specialist today. most of the top players have a background in clay court tennis.

clay is crucial for one`s development as a more complete player as one is required to be effective on all surfaces today in order to be a top player. this is one reason why nick bollitieri was forced to finally build clay courts at his academy. now his students are required to work on clay on weekly basis.

there is also no such thing as a grass court specialist as fed wins on every surface known to mankind.

its the same with other players. who would have thought that a hard hitting mug would end up in a clay court slam final.

who would have thought that ferru would be in the finals at the masters cup in 2007? and endless examples go on and on.

you recently saw garcia-lopez win a clay event then do quite well at queens. do i really need to go on. gonzo is a better clay court player day in and day out and yet he made the finals of a hard court slam. same with carlos moya.

bottom line: they all have to be able to play on all surfaces. its just that clay monster`s very heavy topspin makes his game more ideally suited for clay but the guy has broken his damn knees to prove that he is not a clay court specialist.

lessthanjake
07-31-2009, 05:27 AM
Look what he is playing against, but that would be too much examination, totally different that when he getting beaten by past it guys like Guga, Al Costa and Mantilla.

He lost to all those guys before he had hit his peak on clay IMO. He was still good on clay in 2003 and especially 2004 when those losses happened, but he was a step below what he would become. What you are saying is very similar to using Federer's victory over Sampras in the 2001 Wimbledon as a reflection of Sampras' grass court prowess. Was Sampras still a great grass court player in 2001? Yes. Was he at the peak of his abilities on grass courts? No. Was Federer a great clay court player in 2003 and 2004? Yes. Was he at the peak of his abilities on clay courts? No.

Besides, those are three isolated losses. None of those guys beat him more than once on clay (only Kuerten played him more than once, but still). An 0-1 record against someone doesnt really tell that much. It does not show a pattern of defeat against a player.

Every time there's one these threads, I challenge people to name 5 really good clay court players playing today. No one has been able to do it. Or at least they are ashamed to put that in writing. That the difference, Fedal might have to beat one decent clay courter, but not 2 or 3 each to win an event. The predominate style played today on clay is what I call a HC hybrid version.

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Roger Federer
3. Novak Djokovic
4. Juan Martin Del Potro
5. Fernando Gonzalez
6. Nikolay Davydenko
7. David Nalbandian (when he is actually trying)
8. Gael Monfils

Rafa is one of the very best clay court players ever. Federer is top 10. Djokovic is definitely good enough on clay to win Roland Garros. If I had to bet, I would say Del Potro will win RG at some point in his career (he almost won this year). Gonzalez is a great player who is best on clay. It would not be a surprise if he won RG, though I doubt he ever will given his age. Monfils hasn't peaked yet, but his game is very suited to clay; and he has simply been stopped by Federer in 3 of the last 4 major clay court tournaments he has played (the last two Roland Garros' and 2008 Monte Carlo); he will be a force on clay. Davydenko and Nalbandian will probably not ever win Roland Garros given how old they are now, but both were certainly good enough on clay to do it.

So yeah, there are lots of great players on clay nowadays. I think what you meant, though, was that there arent 5 good clay-specific players. That is probably true. But that is just because the way hard courts and even grass is played now is from the baseline. This means that players who are good on one surface are good on all of them, meaning way less specialized players.

To me, though, that is because hard courts are now being played more like clay courts, not vice versa.

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 05:30 AM
Who has said Nadal is a claycourt specialist? The mislabelling has been going on for years and still will.

As for the game changing, it seems like some people want to forget that, when it suits them.

Clay Death
07-31-2009, 05:43 AM
Who has said Nadal is a claycourt specialist? The mislabelling has been going on for years and still will.

As for the game changing, it seems like some people want to forget that, when it suits them.

i dont know but you have a few here like glen for instance who continue to look for clay court specialists. and they continue to look for grass court specialists as well.

needless to say but they are disappointed every single night. they cant find a single damn clay court specialist.

and neither can they find a grass court specialist. why do i get the feeling that some are just not watching the sport as it evolves right before their eyes.

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 05:50 AM
i dont know but you have a few here like glen for instance who continue to look for clay court specialists. and they continue to look for grass court specialists as well.

needless to say but they are disappointed every single night. they cant find a single damn clay court specialist.

and neither can they find a grass court specialist. why do i get the feeling that some are just not watching the sport as it evolves right before their eyes.

Glen makes valid points, there aren't the level of players that are that good on clay, when the game is homogonised and hardcourt tennis being played on clay with sliding except for Nadal, you have what is the product now.

Only someone deluded would think Federer doesn't benefit from that, hence it goes back to the point, forgetting when it suits them. So how can anyone really gauge how Fed would be, when he doesn't players who play that kind of game consistently and the one that does crushes him.

There are grass specialists, but with so few events, they aren't going to exist at the highest level.

One surface suits all tennis at the moment, then this is what you have.

Clay Death
07-31-2009, 05:57 AM
Glen makes valid points, there aren't the level of players that are that good on clay, when the game is homogonised and hardcourt tennis being played on clay with sliding except for Nadal, you have what is the product now.

Only someone deluded would think Federer doesn't benefit from that, hence it goes back to the point, forgetting when it suits them. So how can anyone really gauge how Fed would be, when he doesn't players who play that kind of game consistently and the one that does crushes him.

There are grass specialists, but with so few events, they aren't going to exist at the highest level.

One surface suits all tennis at the moment, then this is what you have.


i was going to ask you something. any idea as to why roland garros was playing faster than usual.

was it just dry and lot less humid than in the past or did they purposely not bother to relpenish the courts with more crushed red brick. couple that with not watering the courts and you have courts that would play a little faster than usual.

i have never seen the centre court play as fast as it did this year.

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 06:01 AM
i was going to ask you something. any idea as to why roland garros was playing faster than usual.

was it just dry and and lot less humid than in the past or did they purposely did not bother to relpenish the courts with more crushed red brick. couple that with not watering the courts and you have courts that would play a little faster than usual.

i have never seen the centre court play as fast as it did this year.

You pretty much answered your own question for the most part CD. The Centre Court is on a limestone base and when it gets warm it bakes and bakes big time, this plus a bit less clay on the courts and the watering issues, don't forget using a lighter ball.

1996 was quicker than this year.

JediFed
07-31-2009, 06:08 AM
I'd say he's the best of his generation on clay.

Federer's generation?

Federer (1,3)
Ferrero (1,1)
Verkerk (0,1)
Gaudio (1,0)
Coria (0,1)
Puerta (0,1)

3 wins and 6 runner ups.

Weaker then most. You would expect to see 5 wins and 5 runner ups, but that generation is not quite done.

Nadal's generation is strong, needs one more win to match the Kuerten/Kafelnikov/Moya generation, and 3 to match the Courier/Muster/Agassi/Bruguera/Chang generation.

Clay Death
07-31-2009, 06:12 AM
You pretty much answered your own question for the most part CD. The Centre Court is on a limestone base and when it gets warm it bakes and bakes big time, this plus a bit less clay on the courts and the watering issues, don't forget using a lighter ball.

1996 was quicker than this year.


ah good old 1996. the last time somebody would win a double at a slam. kafelnikov won both the singles and the doubles at roland garros. what a performance.

i will have to order that match and see it for the first time. i probably dont need to see muster vs stich match that year there. i wont like it so much. i am sure Muster was struggling.

so the courts were fast that year. interesting.

another factor for a faster game is simply the fact that the players are just hitting the ball harder than ever before. and they are also playing more of an attacking game. sort of like first strike advantage of any weak reply.

they take it early and they hurl themselves into the ball. agassi, johhny mac, and even connors were the pioneers in that regard to some extent as they took the ball early and basically shrunk the court.

makes perfect sense to me. why rally with somebody who can hit them back all day and all night. and also why kill ourself trying to win a match when you know you may have to win 5-7 matches to win the tournament.

lessthanjake
07-31-2009, 06:15 AM
The fact is that there are not really any clay court specialists because the same style of play works for all surfaces. There are players whose best surface is clay: Nadal, Gonzalez, Monfils, Robredo, etc etc. However, those same players frequently get good results on hard courts because hard court matches now are played almost entirely from the baseline, so those who are good on clay still do well on hard courts. So although those players are best on clay and focus on that surface a lot, you do not call them clay court specialists because they post good results elsewhere. The fact that the clay court game translates better to hard courts now than it used to does not make the players who have their best results on clay any worse on clay. It just means that, fortunately for them, they can do well on other surfaces as well.

There are players whose best surface is hard courts or grass: Federer, Djokovic, Safin, Nalbandian etc etc. Because hard/grass courts are played from the baseline similarly to clay courts, those players are still able to post good results on clay. This is unique. In the past, players who were good on hard courts and grass were not usually a huge threat in clay events. Now they are.

It is rather obvious to me that this makes all slams MORE competitive. Instead of having a group of maybe 10 players who can win a clay court slam and a different 10 players who can win on grass/hard courts, we now have 20 players who can win everywhere. I just made up those numbers, of course, but you get the point.

To your way of thinking, though, the old clay court specialists were better on clay than anyone now, which makes it easier for Federer. In my view, the clay court players today are just as good as the old clay court players on clay, they just are able to find success elsewhere as well. Let's just say, though, that you are right. Let us assume that the old clay court specialists were better on clay than today's hybrid players. The fact still remains that a FAR greater percent of today's players are competent on clay than before. This means a typical run through Roland Garros should encounter more legitimately dangerous players than it did before. One might have faced a couple legitimately very dangerous specialists in the past in a run to the title, but now you face a whole slew of players who play the baseline game and are proficient on clay. Therefore, it is a trade-off between facing a large amount of dangerous opponents, or a smaller amount of very dangerous opponents. I don't think it is obvious which is tougher.

The fact is that homogenization of the surfaces means there are more players with games suited to clay. This SHOULD make it harder to win on clay.

casabe
07-31-2009, 06:23 AM
I'd say he's the best of his generation on clay.

Federer's generation?

Federer (1,3)
Ferrero (1,1)
Verkerk (0,1)
Gaudio (1,0)
Coria (0,1)
Puerta (0,1)

3 wins and 6 runner ups.

Weaker then most. You would expect to see 5 wins and 5 runner ups, but that generation is not quite done.

Nadal's generation is strong, needs one more win to match the Kuerten/Kafelnikov/Moya generation, and 3 to match the Courier/Muster/Agassi/Bruguera/Chang generation.

nadal s generation is nadal itself :p

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 06:28 AM
ah good old 1996. the last time somebody would win a double at a slam. kafelnikov won both the singles and the doubles at roland garros. what a performance.

i will have to order that match and see it for the first time. i probably dont need to see muster vs stich match that year there. i wont like it so much. i am sure Muster was struggling.

so the courts were fast that year. interesting.

another factor for a faster game is simply the fact that the players are just hitting the ball harder than ever before. and they are also playing more of an attacking game. sort of like first strike advantage of any weak reply.

they take it early and they hurl themselves into the ball. agassi, johhny mac, and even connors were the pioneers in that regard to some extent as they took the ball early and basically shrunk the court.

makes perfect sense to me. why rally with somebody who can hit them back all day and all night. and also why kill ourself trying to win a match when you know you may have to win 5-7 matches to win the tournament.

Muster and Stich is actually worth watching for many reasons. A massive favourite going out, Stich playing an outstanding tactical match, turned up to play and this match was on Lenglen, there are many ways to look at it.

Very hot and dry that year, when the last 4 is Stich, Kafelnikov, Rosset and Sampras that says a lot. This performance with Sampras's draw was better than many of his Wimbledon wins.

Got to be able to defend on clay, but it's not enough anymore, have to be able to finish points, has been like that since Guga came on the scene really, he took it up another level from Muster.

The Toad didn't ballbash this year, he hit with intent, but there were some very heavy forehands, just like his coach did.

The termite is still buzzing I see.

bokehlicious
07-31-2009, 08:49 AM
Why am I not surprised that such a thread had to draw the Gugatards out of the woods... :zzz:

Ok, let's please the haters: Federer would get schooled any day on clay by: Nadal, Borg, Vilas, Chang, Gomez, Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Kuerten, Gaudio, Coria, Moya, Costa, etc...

Happy?

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

ORGASMATRON
07-31-2009, 10:47 AM
That bitch, with a tore up hip, blew the clay master, Federer, off the court.

That match didnt tell us much, it was before Roger started his domination on clay.

I thought bitches were female dogs. Kuerten wasn't a dog. Well he was a dog, but you get the picture...

:lol:

Borg> Rafa> Lendl> Vilas> Kuerten> Federer> Muster> Burguera> Agassi> Gomez> Shit> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MTF

Pretty clear IMO

Not a bad list at all.

Why am I not surprised that such a thread had to draw the Gugatards out of the woods... :zzz:

Ok, let's please the haters: Federer would get schooled any day on clay by: Nadal, Borg, Vilas, Chang, Gomez, Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Kuerten, Gaudio, Coria, Moya, Costa, etc...

Happy?

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Lol. I wonder what the haters think about Roger giving Nadull a schooling on his favorite surafce, in front of a fanatic crowd in his home country. Oh wait, Nadull was dead tired and he had a broken knee. Silly me :rolleyes:

Har-Tru
07-31-2009, 11:27 AM
It's not so much that clay has been sped up (it has, but it's not like Wimbledon grass). It's rather that the other surfaces have been slowed down, so players don't have to make so many adjustments when playing on clay as they did before.

MacTheKnife
07-31-2009, 11:55 AM
It's not so much that clay has been sped up (it has, but it's not like Wimbledon grass). It's rather that the other surfaces have been slowed down, so players don't have to make so many adjustments when playing on clay as they did before.

^^^This. And still nobody has named 5 really good clay court players today. I saw a few named some guys that play on clay, that's pretty easy to do. BUT, there aren't 5 REALLY good clay court players.
Also, I could be wrong about this, but I don't think the balls get as heavy as they used to either. I know they don't from my own playing experience on har-tru, but I've only ever played a couple for on the red stuff..

Har-Tru
07-31-2009, 12:35 PM
^^^This. And still nobody has named 5 really good clay court players today. I saw a few named some guys that play on clay, that's pretty easy to do. BUT, there aren't 5 REALLY good clay court players.
Also, I could be wrong about this, but I don't think the balls get as heavy as they used to either. I know they don't from my own playing experience on har-tru, but I've only ever played a couple for on the red stuff..

what do you mean heavy? you mean the balls are lighter now?

5 very good clay court players, well Nadal, Federer, Djokovic are there. That's three granted, but Nadal's muscles count for two and Federer's ego does too. Del Potro and Kolya are one step behind, not sure if they'd fit your definition.

stebs
07-31-2009, 01:01 PM
^^^This. And still nobody has named 5 really good clay court players today. I saw a few named some guys that play on clay, that's pretty easy to do. BUT, there aren't 5 REALLY good clay court players.

This is true. Whilst the weak era stuff gets blown out of proportion by some people considering all the players from the 90's as being in one era (which is like saying Federer's 2000's rivals include Sampras, Kafelnikov etc...) there simply hasn't been a strong top field of clay players for a few years.

Nadal is obviously a monster on the red stuff, Federer is one of the greatest players and he has become very strong on clay as well especially from 2006 onward when I think he began to focus more on it and we have some other pretty good players actually. I think Djokovic, especially in the last two years has been on the verge of becoming a REALLY good clay court player, he has the ability but it needs to happen for him at RG to say it really.

I think the reason why we haven't got that strength at the pinnacle is because the players who should've been there haven't been there which is a great shame. Imagine the last few years with a strong Ferrero, Coria and Gaudio. Had those three not gone away in the way that they did as serious threats this clay field would be a lot stronger. As it is, it worked out for the guys who were left to do the job. Thing is, I still think Federer would've had very good clay results with those three playing good stuff. It's a shame though that we didn't see more of the elite clay players continuing to be forces through toward the end of this decade though, a great shame.

Har-Tru
07-31-2009, 01:29 PM
This is true. Whilst the weak era stuff gets blown out of proportion by some people considering all the players from the 90's as being in one era (which is like saying Federer's 2000's rivals include Sampras, Kafelnikov etc...) there simply hasn't been a strong top field of clay players for a few years.

Nadal is obviously a monster on the red stuff, Federer is one of the greatest players and he has become very strong on clay as well especially from 2006 onward when I think he began to focus more on it and we have some other pretty good players actually. I think Djokovic, especially in the last two years has been on the verge of becoming a REALLY good clay court player, he has the ability but it needs to happen for him at RG to say it really.

I think the reason why we haven't got that strength at the pinnacle is because the players who should've been there haven't been there which is a great shame. Imagine the last few years with a strong Ferrero, Coria and Gaudio. Had those three not gone away in the way that they did as serious threats this clay field would be a lot stronger. As it is, it worked out for the guys who were left to do the job. Thing is, I still think Federer would've had very good clay results with those three playing good stuff. It's a shame though that we didn't see more of the elite clay players continuing to be forces through toward the end of this decade though, a great shame.

good post

MacTheKnife
07-31-2009, 01:59 PM
there is also no such thing as a grass court specialist as fed wins on every surface known to mankind.

This is exactly right and my original challenge was to name 5 really good clay court players and 5 really good grass court players. I got no response on either, well I can't say no response, but let's just say the one or two that did come back were extremely week.


what do you mean heavy? you mean the balls are lighter now?

5 very good clay court players, well Nadal, Federer, Djokovic are there. That's three granted, but Nadal's muscles count for two and Federer's ego does too. Del Potro and Kolya are one step behind, not sure if they'd fit your definition.


Yes, it just doesn't seem to me that they collect clay and get as "heavy" as they used to. I could be totally off base about that, and it may well be that I'm playing with a lot better equipment than I did 40 years ago. But it just seems that the regular duty balls manufactured for clay today do not collect the dirt like they used to. It just used to fell like you were hitting a bowling ball.

I guess that does total five if you count Nadal's muscles and Fed's ego.. :haha: Ok you got me, sorta..

Clay Death
07-31-2009, 02:58 PM
Muster and Stich is actually worth watching for many reasons. A massive favourite going out, Stich playing an outstanding tactical match, turned up to play and this match was on Lenglen, there are many ways to look at it.

Very hot and dry that year, when the last 4 is Stich, Kafelnikov, Rosset and Sampras that says a lot. This performance with Sampras's draw was better than many of his Wimbledon wins.

Got to be able to defend on clay, but it's not enough anymore, have to be able to finish points, has been like that since Guga came on the scene really, he took it up another level from Muster.

The Toad didn't ballbash this year, he hit with intent, but there were some very heavy forehands, just like his coach did.

The termite is still buzzing I see.

good post. guga had a natural advantage going for him that helped his cause. he could produce easy power due to benefits of leverage. he was nearly 6 foot 3. muster was barely 6 feet tall.

i have seen some pics of muster from 1996. his hip may started to bother him or something. didnt he have his leg wrapped up in a large bandage or something. i will have to look into it.

that being said, i would have to agree. guga did take it up a notch. he also took the ball early at times and that took time away from his opponenets. he was also not afraid to go to the net and end points that were begging to be ended.

**you are right. the hapless termite continues to buzz away waste away.

HattonWBA
07-31-2009, 03:14 PM
He is excellent on Clay

Corey Feldman
07-31-2009, 03:31 PM
i think you will find in 2009 he is The King of Clay

hope that helped

lessthanjake
07-31-2009, 03:40 PM
^^^This. And still nobody has named 5 really good clay court players today. I saw a few named some guys that play on clay, that's pretty easy to do. BUT, there aren't 5 REALLY good clay court players.

Again, ill name some.

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Roger Federer
3. Novak Djokovic
4. Juan Martin Del Potro
5. Nikolay Davydenko
6. Fernando Gonzalez
7. David Nalbandian

All of those guys would be very worthy winners of Roland Garros in my mind, and therefore I consider them really good clay court players.

8. Tommy Robredo
9. David Ferrer
10. Gael Monfils

I would be surprised if those three guys won Roland Garros (Monfils will be more of a contender in the future though); however, they are quite good on clay.

Anyways, like any era, this era on clay would be slightly stronger if some players hadn't gotten injured or crapped out. Specifically, if Ferrero, Coria, Gaudio, and Moya had continued to play well past the early part of this era, then this era would be VERY strong for clay courters. I am not sure that Federer would have that much more trouble if those guys were around, though, as he is a total of 10-0 against those 4 players on clay.

MatchFederer
07-31-2009, 04:04 PM
yes Glen, that comes from the surface homogenization which in turn makes the players play basically the same game all year long :shrug:

that's why there aren't many decent claycourters around, because everybody pretty much moves like on the rest of surfaces and movement is key to be a good claycourter :shrug:

AJ, let's make it simple: Guga is much better in a claycourt point of view that Roger, but Roger is not a clay mug, that's all I wanted to say :shrug:

Peak Guga would have still defeated peak Roger at RG IMO, Roger did manage to take him down in Hamburg, but one thing are MS and another are GS and Guga was very strong at RG on his peak ;)

Comments like this are freakin' annoying. Peak Federer could beat a peak Guga. Peak Guga could beat a peak Federer. Generally excellent players at their peaks who are both at least very good on a surface have chances of beating each other.

MatchFederer
07-31-2009, 04:07 PM
Again, ill name some.

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Roger Federer
3. Novak Djokovic
4. Juan Martin Del Potro
5. Nikolay Davydenko
6. Fernando Gonzalez
7. David Nalbandian

All of those guys would be very worthy winners of Roland Garros in my mind, and therefore I consider them really good clay court players.

8. Tommy Robredo
9. David Ferrer
10. Gael Monfils

I would be surprised if those three guys won Roland Garros (Monfils will be more of a contender in the future though); however, they are quite good on clay.

Anyways, like any era, this era on clay would be slightly stronger if some players hadn't gotten injured or crapped out. Specifically, if Ferrero, Coria, Gaudio, and Moya had continued to play well past the early part of this era, then this era would be VERY strong for clay courters. I am not sure that Federer would have that much more trouble if those guys were around, though, as he is a total of 10-0 against those 4 players on clay.

It is a very decent list, though the depth is unspectacular. However, Nadal and Federer are truly excellent clay courters.

MacTheKnife
07-31-2009, 04:09 PM
It is a very decent list, though the depth is unspectacular. However, Nadal and Federer are truly excellent clay courters.

:yeah:

lessthanjake
07-31-2009, 05:31 PM
I think the depth is decent. How many other SPECIFIC years, not whole decades, are there 7 or more players that would be very legitimate champions at Roland Garros? Some years have more, but many have less, and I wasn't even naming every good clay player.

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 06:02 PM
what do you mean heavy? you mean the balls are lighter now?

5 very good clay court players, well Nadal, Federer, Djokovic are there. That's three granted, but Nadal's muscles count for two and Federer's ego does too. Del Potro and Kolya are one step behind, not sure if they'd fit your definition.

The ball on clay is lighter and they use a heavier ball on the faster surfaces.

Arkulari
07-31-2009, 06:20 PM
I guess it also depends on where the clay event is held, not the same to do it in Madrid than in Bogotá, the balls must be different as well :shrug:

anyone has seen a HC event on high altitude? wonder what kind of balls they could use (and by high altitude I don't mean Madrid which is not THAT high)

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 06:31 PM
Johannesburg is a hardcourt event at altitude, but what about it? They use a heavier ball, then there are specific altitude tennis balls, but that isn't relevant as there aren't major events at altitude.

lessthanjake
07-31-2009, 09:23 PM
Why are we on about altitude? I see no real reason to believe that the clay courts nowadays are different than they were before. They might play differently, but only because modern rackets facilitate an attacking baseline game over a defensive style.

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 09:29 PM
This is true. Whilst the weak era stuff gets blown out of proportion by some people considering all the players from the 90's as being in one era (which is like saying Federer's 2000's rivals include Sampras, Kafelnikov etc...) there simply hasn't been a strong top field of clay players for a few years.

Nadal is obviously a monster on the red stuff, Federer is one of the greatest players and he has become very strong on clay as well especially from 2006 onward when I think he began to focus more on it and we have some other pretty good players actually. I think Djokovic, especially in the last two years has been on the verge of becoming a REALLY good clay court player, he has the ability but it needs to happen for him at RG to say it really.

I think the reason why we haven't got that strength at the pinnacle is because the players who should've been there haven't been there which is a great shame. Imagine the last few years with a strong Ferrero, Coria and Gaudio. Had those three not gone away in the way that they did as serious threats this clay field would be a lot stronger. As it is, it worked out for the guys who were left to do the job. Thing is, I still think Federer would've had very good clay results with those three playing good stuff. It's a shame though that we didn't see more of the elite clay players continuing to be forces through toward the end of this decade though, a great shame.

Fair and balanced.

jake, learn from the post from stebs, actually how to construct an argument when knowing about the subject matter from seeing it with his own eyes along with taking important overall factors.

lessthanjake
07-31-2009, 09:39 PM
Don't lecture me on how to make an argument. I assure you I know how to make an argument better than 99.9% of people (I was a state champion debater two years in my home state).

I actually responded to stebs' post though, by the way. Federer is 7-0 on clay against the guys he mentioned, first off, so I think he would've dealt with that just fine. Secondly, every era has guys that got injured and such; its not like this era is worse and that is a reason to say that it was thinner at the top on clay. Anyways, yeah, if Ferrero, COria, and Gaudio had been around more, this wouldve been a truly special clay court era. Agreed. I just don't think it is weak without them.

EDIT: I almost think that Federer would've been better off on clay if Ferrero, Coria, and Gaudio were around. Sure, he might lose to those guys sometimes, but he seemed to have the upper hand against them all on clay. If those guys were around, though, Nadal might not have been making virtually every clay court final that Federer did, stopping Federer from almost always having to win against a player he matches up against so badly.

Arkulari
07-31-2009, 09:56 PM
I've seen a hundred clay matches in my lifetime, from the club near my house to RG, but I can't really talk much about the ones before my time, I know the stats and I have seen older matches, but I wasn't there, it's like a person who talks about WWII and read all the history and knows the facts, but wasn't there, one thing is talking from experience and living and another to talk from what is on the books :shrug:

Har-Tru
07-31-2009, 10:00 PM
Don't lecture me on how to make an argument. I assure you I know how to make an argument better than 99.9% of people (I was a state champion debater two years in my home state).

Well that settles it then.

Arkulari
07-31-2009, 10:02 PM
stats can only say so much, but watching and living stuff is what can really make you have a strong argument point in things like tennis :shrug:

tangerine_dream
07-31-2009, 10:02 PM
Is this the most boring thread on MTF ever?

MacTheKnife
07-31-2009, 10:02 PM
Well that settles it then.

:haha: :haha: out loud, literally...

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 10:03 PM
I've seen a hundred clay matches in my lifetime, from the club near my house to RG, but I can't really talk much about the ones before my time, I know the stats and I have seen older matches, but I wasn't there, it's like a person who talks about WWII and read all the history and knows the facts, but wasn't there, one thing is talking from experience and living and another to talk from what is on the books :shrug:

That is exactly it. Hence this is why I don't take or will take Jake seriously for the last reason.

Trying to be the smart guy, but not knowing the circumstances during the respective periods that he is trying to be smart about. How can someone who started watching tennis recently truly appreciate Lendl/Wilander RG finals for example in the 80s, because there would be no understanding of the game at that current point in time and what the dynamics were, especially as they would be coming from a perspective grounding at this current time, doesn't work.

Applying just raw data to cover for a lack of perspective. Numbers don't mean much alone, if they aren't actually analysed.

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 10:05 PM
Jake, you don't know what hand Bruguera was, your lack of credibility was exposed already.

Arkulari
07-31-2009, 10:11 PM
AJ: books and stats can only take you so far, but one can always overlook facts that aren't written but were important and were only able to be seen through living, same could happen in let's say 20 years time when our kids are talking about Federer and Nadal, they would be able to see the matches but maybe they wouldn't understand a lot of things we saw in our time :shrug:

Har-Tru
07-31-2009, 10:11 PM
Is this the most boring thread on MTF ever?

hmm not really. but it's about clay so it probably is for you.

That is exactly it. Hence this is why I don't take or will take Jake seriously for the last reason.

Trying to be the smart guy, but not knowing the circumstances during the respective periods that he is trying to be smart about. How can someone who started watching tennis recently truly appreciate Lendl/Wilander RG finals for example in the 80s, because there would be no understanding of the game at that current point in time and what the dynamics were, especially as they would be coming from a perspective grounding at this current time, doesn't work.

You can research and watch old matches, and make an effort to understand the conditions and contexts in the different periods, but it will never be the same as watching it live and living it. That's why there's certain paths one should not take when talking about stuff they haven't seen, but on MTF GM that's probably a crime.

Until some years ago, players adjusted their games to clay. There were guys like Corretja or Costa or Kuerten who actually exploited the clay and knew how to profit from it. They played clay tennis, not just tennis on clay.

Arkulari
07-31-2009, 10:13 PM
You can research and watch old matches, and make an effort to understand the conditions and contexts in the different periods, but it will never be the same as watching it live and living it. That's why there's certain paths one should not take when talking about stuff they haven't seen, but on MTF GM that's probably a crime.

Until some years ago, players adjusted their games to clay. There were guys like Corretja or Costa or Kuerten who actually exploited the clay and knew how to profit from it. They played clay tennis, not just tennis on clay.

Spot on Jose, there are things that need to be lived in order to get a better understanding of the game :yeah:

Sapeod
07-31-2009, 10:13 PM
Is this bullshit still going on?

lessthanjake
07-31-2009, 10:14 PM
Jake, you don't know what hand Bruguera was, your lack of credibility was exposed already.

Hahahahahaha are you just trying to be an idiot? IVE WATCHED BRUGUERA LIVE. I'm not too young to have seen him and thus your point is ridiculous EVEN IF I wasnt asking a rhetorical question before. All that wouldve meant is that I forgot.

Besides, you act as though knowing what hand Bruguera plays with is the holy grail of knowledge. To be entirely honest, I cant tell you what hand A LOT of players that I have watched MANY times play with. I believe I notice when people are lefties (because it is somewhat significant to a matchup), so I assume those I havent noticed are righties, but I wouldn't be 100% sure about a lot of people. Is it really THAT important in the grand scheme of things to know that? Or are you just grasping at straws becuase your argument is a huge failure? I think its the latter.

MacTheKnife
07-31-2009, 10:15 PM
Is this bullshit still going on?

You guys are killing me.. :haha: unfortunately, yes..

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 10:15 PM
I mean there are people that will piss on Federer and Nadal in the future and what they have done in the game. Reading is always a good thing and paints a picture for sure, but it's incomplete for obvious reasons.

Action Jackson
07-31-2009, 10:19 PM
You can research and watch old matches, and make an effort to understand the conditions and contexts in the different periods, but it will never be the same as watching it live and living it. That's why there's certain paths one should not take when talking about stuff they haven't seen, but on MTF GM that's probably a crime.

Until some years ago, players adjusted their games to clay. There were guys like Corretja or Costa or Kuerten who actually exploited the clay and knew how to profit from it. They played clay tennis, not just tennis on clay.

It can't be the same as living through it and yes doing as much research as possible is something to be admired, but it counts for shit, when it's flawed and just based on raw data. Exactly right about talking stuff they haven't seen in that current context. It's like football, I loved the history of it, but I am not going to talk about the game in the late 60s with someone who lived through it and is able to relate to that time and think I am a hot shot.

They had to adjust their games to the surface, because of the differences in the speed. Stich had to vary his game for clay, he served/volleyed but not always, he did it enough to keep players off balance.

Rios used his angles and changes of pace to do it. Corretja did it with keeping the ball high and deep, but he couldn't do that against Guga because Guga had the power to counter it.

lessthanjake
07-31-2009, 10:32 PM
I don't see where having watching tennis decades ago comes into play in such a big way here. In some instances, I will readily admit that players who watched tennis live decades ago will inherently know more than me. However, the argument here has been about spin of the ball between eras. In this case, it is just documented fact that there was less spin in previous eras. It is also documented fact that Federer's main weakness on clay is a super spinny ball. If there was less spin used in previous eras and Federer's weakness is a lot of spin, then it is logical to say that Federer's clay weakness would be minimized if he had played in a different era.

Your argument is that although it is POSSIBLE to spin it more nowadays, players choose to hit it flat a lot more because they play a hard court game, meaning that in reality, Federer would face more mega-spin players in the past than he does now, no matter how much easier it is to create spin now.

Thats a fair point, but it doesnt hold up. Again, it is documented fact that modern players like Andy Roddick who are not known for spin, hit with as much spin nowadays as spinny clay court players of the recent past like Thomas Muster did. Federer never has had a problem with that Andy Roddick-level of topspin.

Nowhere in this argument is having watched A LOT of matches particularly relevant. You can say that you saw players put more topspin on the ball in the past, but I trust a scientific study more than your eyes. You probably only think that because they ALSO hit with less pace. Pace + topspin = doesnt look as loopy.

ORGASMATRON
07-31-2009, 11:47 PM
i think you will find in 2009 he is The King of Clay

hope that helped

This

rhinooooo
08-01-2009, 12:25 AM
I don't see where having watching tennis decades ago comes into play in such a big way here. In some instances, I will readily admit that players who watched tennis live decades ago will inherently know more than me. However, the argument here has been about spin of the ball between eras. In this case, it is just documented fact that there was less spin in previous eras. It is also documented fact that Federer's main weakness on clay is a super spinny ball. If there was less spin used in previous eras and Federer's weakness is a lot of spin, then it is logical to say that Federer's clay weakness would be minimized if he had played in a different era.

Your argument is that although it is POSSIBLE to spin it more nowadays, players choose to hit it flat a lot more because they play a hard court game, meaning that in reality, Federer would face more mega-spin players in the past than he does now, no matter how much easier it is to create spin now.

Thats a fair point, but it doesnt hold up. Again, it is documented fact that modern players like Andy Roddick who are not known for spin, hit with as much spin nowadays as spinny clay court players of the recent past like Thomas Muster did. Federer never has had a problem with that Andy Roddick-level of topspin.

Nowhere in this argument is having watched A LOT of matches particularly relevant. You can say that you saw players put more topspin on the ball in the past, but I trust a scientific study more than your eyes. You probably only think that because they ALSO hit with less pace. Pace + topspin = doesnt look as loopy.

You can't make this comparison because you ignore other significant factors - equipment (racket technology), balls, and the make-up of the courts (material, surface laying, environment, which affect speed, bounce, how they take spin etc).

leng jai
08-01-2009, 12:31 AM
Didn't I settle this thread 9 pages ago?

Action Jackson
08-01-2009, 12:34 AM
You can't make this comparison because you ignore other significant factors - equipment (racket technology), balls, and the make-up of the courts (material, surface laying, environment, which affect speed, bounce, how they take spin etc).

This has already been said by many other people besides myself, so the essays are useless and will continue to be useless, when the important factors are missed out. The surface make up, technology, the different court compositions. Fed loved Hamburg, it was the bounce more so than the slow speed for that reason.

The argument keeps changing as well, what's the actual point. The point is bump up Federer's greatness on clay and this was established ages ago.

Clay Death
08-01-2009, 01:00 AM
Is this the most boring thread on MTF ever?


affirmative. useless arguments made even more useless by the truly clueless.

lessthanjake
08-01-2009, 03:38 AM
This has already been said by many other people besides myself, so the essays are useless and will continue to be useless, when the important factors are missed out. The surface make up, technology, the different court compositions. Fed loved Hamburg, it was the bounce more so than the slow speed for that reason.

The argument keeps changing as well, what's the actual point. The point is bump up Federer's greatness on clay and this was established ages ago.

Other surfaces have changed far more than clay has. I mean, yeah, grass is slower now, but as far as I know, clay hasn't changed much. I might be wrong on that; so tell me if I am, but I have always had the impression that professional clay courts have been kept pretty stable. Obviously, the weather conditions (dryness, heat, etc etc) affect things, but those arent era-dependent.

Sapeod
08-01-2009, 03:54 AM
Give it a rest Jakey. No point in arguing anymore.

stebs
08-01-2009, 10:52 AM
Other surfaces have changed far more than clay has. I mean, yeah, grass is slower now, but as far as I know, clay hasn't changed much. I might be wrong on that; so tell me if I am, but I have always had the impression that professional clay courts have been kept pretty stable. Obviously, the weather conditions (dryness, heat, etc etc) affect things, but those arent era-dependent.

I am not an expert in terms of the way time and factors changes clay courts but yes they have changed a lot. You will probably have to wait for someone else to come and tell you why because I have no idea and I don't have much interest in why either to be honest but the courts play different than they used to and that is just based on what I see on the TV screen. If you want to check for yourself just get on a youtube tennis binge and in an hour or two you will be persuaded, I'm sure of it.

Action Jackson
08-01-2009, 11:41 AM
I am not an expert in terms of the way time and factors changes clay courts but yes they have changed a lot. You will probably have to wait for someone else to come and tell you why because I have no idea and I don't have much interest in why either to be honest but the courts play different than they used to and that is just based on what I see on the TV screen. If you want to check for yourself just get on a youtube tennis binge and in an hour or two you will be persuaded, I'm sure of it.

It's clear that this the case that they have changed. After the Bruguera/Berasategui RG final they wanted to speed the play up on clay, this is done by using a lighter ball on clay for one.

Other ways they did it was changing the composition of how the courts were laid. There is less top surface on the courts, so depending on what base the courts are laid upon, this changes the dynamics as well. When there is less clay on the top surface then it's going to play faster that is obvious, in addition to the changes in the game with a more physical style, one doesn't exist without the other.

I will put it in a simple way, when you are at the beach. There is soft sand and there is hard sand. When there is more clay on the top surface it's like the soft hand and hard sand is less top surface.

Haelfix
08-01-2009, 12:15 PM
In terms of stats I'd put the claycourters roughly like: Borg, Nadal, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten, Federer + the rest.

In terms of pure ability at their peaks: Nadal, Borg, Kuerten, Federer, Lendl, Wilander ~ Bruguera ~ Muster.

Eg, does anyone really think that Wilander would have beaten Federer at RG? Probably not.. Fed completely outguns him in just about every area (and Wilander is a childhood idol of mine).

Action Jackson
08-01-2009, 01:10 PM
In terms of stats I'd put the claycourters roughly like: Borg, Nadal, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten, Federer + the rest.

In terms of pure ability at their peaks: Nadal, Borg, Kuerten, Federer, Lendl, Wilander ~ Bruguera ~ Muster.

Eg, does anyone really think that Wilander would have beaten Federer at RG? Probably not.. Fed completely outguns him in just about every area (and Wilander is a childhood idol of mine).

Why mention Wilander? It's not like he hadn't beaten players who were better than with more weapons. It's a useless question, since the eras are so far apart. Wilander wouldn't play the same game now and Federer wouldn't play the game he does now, had he played in Wilander's era.

ORGASMATRON
08-01-2009, 01:18 PM
Fed would own Wilander on clay.

Bargearse
08-01-2009, 01:35 PM
Don't know HOW good Federer is on clay, but he's pretty damn good. How long is a piece of string?

Are there any clay court specialists anymore? :scratch:

Arkulari
08-01-2009, 01:35 PM
http://xs234.xs.to/xs234/08490/facepalm_implied2944.jpg

Dini
08-01-2009, 01:39 PM
Don't know HOW good Federer is on clay, but he's pretty damn good. How long is a piece of string?


:lol:

This.

I think Fed is good on the surface because he's good overall and not because he's anything special on clay.

Bargearse
08-01-2009, 01:48 PM
:lol:

This.

I think Fed is good on the surface because he's good overall and not because he's anything special on clay.

:lol: You're right. So, if there are any clay court 'specialists', out there, they would be pretty cranky that someone not particularly exceptional on the surface has been so successful.

Crazy Girl
08-01-2009, 02:37 PM
Roger is always so good, great and cool.

Wherever you place him, he looks well...to stay there!!

I know where I should love to place him...:devil::devil::devil:

(look at my sig...:o:p)

FairWeatherFan
08-01-2009, 03:02 PM
He is good enough to be the second-best claycourt player in this current era of men's tennis. To say he is not a great player on clay is to attack the current era, so you may as well have merged this with your '90s claycourt tennis is overrated' topic, instead of cluttering this forum with two ultimately futile threads

ForehandWinner
08-01-2009, 04:24 PM
Undoubtedly second best.

Leo
08-01-2009, 05:07 PM
Fails to take in too many factors and why now and not during the clayseason?

Typical Action Jackson defense. Don't like the opinion offered in a thread, so simply deny it without explaining why. It's beneath him. You're just wrong and not taking account certain factors.

This is a Federer worship thread.

This is not a new topic and has been discussed numerous times actually with a lot of different scenarios and in other threads.

It's the fact that Federer has done the best against Nadal, who is one of the greatest players ever on the surface, therefore it must mean he is one of the greatest ever.

If you choose to ignore the fact how the style of game on clay has changed and is more like the hardcourt game translated on all surfaces and ignore other factors of when the players you think he is better than, by using numbers to justify his greatness without measuring other things, then it's a Fed worship thread.

Federer is probably the best attacking player in the classic sense along with Laver on clay, but that is a different thing altogether.

A different thing altogether? Not really, no. It does relate to this thread.

I appreciate this thread because of all the statistics offered.

My opinion is that Federer definitely is one of the best clay court players of all time. You don't scoff at 4 RG finals in a row with 1 title. However, it should be noted that this decade has not been a classic generation for good dirt-ballers. Besides Nadal and Federer, there weren't many greats. Just look at the names that the OP assembled as Federer's great competition on clay besides Nadal and few of those names really impress. Ferrero and Coria both peaked at the start of the decade and have not been the same on clay since. Moya, Mantilla, Corretja, Kuerten were mostly past their prime when Federer came up to his level in 2004. But could the Federer who found his groove on clay circa 2006 beat any of them on clay in their prime? Absolutely.

With his blend of offense and defense, his precise footwork and accurate serve, his mastery of spins, for sure Federer ranks among the best ever on clay.

Leo
08-01-2009, 05:09 PM
Are there any clay court specialists anymore? :scratch:

Not really that I can think of. The days of specialists are gone. Most courts around the world play the same, different surface or not.

federersforehand
08-01-2009, 05:12 PM
This action jackson guy really hates saying anything remotely positive about federer or this era hey?

Har-Tru
08-01-2009, 06:22 PM
Not really that I can think of. The days of specialists are gone. Most courts around the world play the same, different surface or not.

there are clay specialists, just none able to compete with the best of the best.

Action Jackson
08-01-2009, 06:34 PM
Not really that I can think of. The days of specialists are gone. Most courts around the world play the same, different surface or not.

True for the most part.

Clay Death
08-01-2009, 07:05 PM
Not really that I can think of. The days of specialists are gone. Most courts around the world play the same, different surface or not.


negative. the surfaces have a lot less to do with the direction the sport is going and the evolution of the sport itself.

ORGASMATRON
08-01-2009, 07:10 PM
This action jackson guy really hates saying anything remotely positive about federer or this era hey?

Affirmative. Still living in the past.

Action Jackson
08-01-2009, 07:10 PM
negative. the surfaces have a lot less to do with the direction the sport is going and the evolution of the sport itself.

Ahem! we have been through this many times, if you fail to acknowledge one important factor that ties in with the other, that is just spin doctoring, because it doesn't follow a particular viewpoint.

The fact is that they are intertwined.

Matt01
08-01-2009, 07:12 PM
This action jackson guy really hates saying anything remotely positive about federer or this era hey?


He's very objective :wavey:

Clay Death
08-01-2009, 07:53 PM
Ahem! we have been through this many times, if you fail to acknowledge one important factor that ties in with the other, that is just spin doctoring, because it doesn't follow a particular viewpoint.

The fact is that they are intertwined.

aj you old fox. you know me better than that.

i refuse to spin anything.

by the way, groove dude paid a visit to the castle today.

Action Jackson
08-01-2009, 07:59 PM
aj you old fox. you know me better than that.

i refuse to spin anything.

by the way, groove dude paid a visit to the castle today.

Just keeping you on your toes, these factors are intertwined, the degree depends on what viewpoint you take. There are always new trends, some last longer than others, but there are things that stand the test of time.

The surface speed and homogenisation is as important as the benefits of sports science, technique, strength, speed endurance and other technological developments. You failed to acknowledge the lessening of the surface speeds and focused only on the forward progression, that is spinning.

Sapeod
08-01-2009, 08:00 PM
He's very objective :wavey:
What's with you and using that wavey smilie???

ORGASMATRON
08-01-2009, 08:03 PM
What's with you and using that wavey smilie???

:lol::o

FedFan_2007
08-01-2009, 08:15 PM
Doh! OF course Federer is the 3rd best claycourter of the decade. Guga won 2 French Opens(2000, 2001) and beat Federer in 2004 at Roland Garros.

ORGASMATRON
08-01-2009, 08:17 PM
Actually Guga won 3 FO's :silly:

FedFan_2007
08-01-2009, 08:57 PM
Yeah but I'm talking about the 2000s.

1. Nadal - 4 French Opens, 10 masters
2. Guga - 2 French Opens, 2 masters
3. Federer - 1 French Open, 5 masters
4. JCF - 1 French Open, 1 French final and 3 masters

However if looking at a 10 year period is useless, then just taking into account the last half of the decade(2005-2009)

1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. ....

It was all Fedal.

Action Jackson
08-01-2009, 09:04 PM
Fedfan and ruanz, the dream team. This is up there with Siegfried and Roy or Lennon and McCartney.

Sapeod
08-01-2009, 09:16 PM
:wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Matt01
08-01-2009, 09:17 PM
What's with you and using that wavey smilie???


:wavey::wavey::wavey:

ORGASMATRON
08-01-2009, 09:26 PM
:wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey:

Sapeod
08-01-2009, 09:29 PM
:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey: :wavey:

ORGASMATRON
08-01-2009, 09:33 PM
Fedfan and ruanz, the dream team. This is up there with Siegfried and Roy or Lennon and McCartney.

You forgot Bono and the Edge.

ORGASMATRON
08-01-2009, 09:36 PM
:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey: :wavey:

:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey:: wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey:

Sapeod
08-01-2009, 09:37 PM
:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey:: wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey:
O.K. I think Matt01 has had a hard on already. We better stop with these smilies :lol:

ORGASMATRON
08-01-2009, 09:40 PM
:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey:: wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::w avey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey:

Now he has an orgasm.

Matt01
08-01-2009, 09:47 PM
Nice to see that the children have found something they can play with.

Action Jackson
08-01-2009, 09:48 PM
Typical Action Jackson defense. Don't like the opinion offered in a thread, so simply deny it without explaining why. It's beneath him. You're just wrong and not taking account certain factors.

Don't be a clown. Already explained numerous times why the thought process was flawed. Relying solely on numbers to present an argument without taking into account technology of the given day and how that impacts on the game then and now, in respect to style and physically, without actually having seen tennis during this period of time.

Not knowing what hand Bruguera played with isn't exactly going to inspire confidence that they know what they are talking about. Saying that the previous generation of players aren't good because they didn't win RG, yet does not apply the same standards to the current generation because it doesn't fit the argument. As different match ups, making excuses that Fed wasn't what he was and forgetting that Guga, Mantilla and Costa were past their best when they beat him.

How can something totally based on numerical data and not actually what the tennis at that period of time, that would require taking notice in the trends and what happened with the evolution and applying that to the data.

Not enough reasons.

Clay Death
08-01-2009, 09:51 PM
Nice to see that the children have found something they can play with.


well if you are talking about ospasmatroll, last time i checked, he resembles more a prepubescent, 1/2 starved (for attention, that is) parasite than anything else.

ORGASMATRON
08-01-2009, 09:53 PM
well if you are talking about ospasmatroll, last time i checked, he resembles more a prepubescent, 1/2 starved (for attention, that is) parasite than anything else.

wow you got something right :yeah:

Action Jackson
08-01-2009, 09:55 PM
:wavey::p:drive:

Clay Death
08-01-2009, 09:55 PM
wow you got something right :yeah:


:drink::drink::drink::drink::drink::drink::drink:: drink::drink::drink::drink::drink::drink:

Clay Death
08-01-2009, 10:09 PM
:wavey::p:drive:


:music::music::music::music::drink::drink::drink:: drink::drink::drink::smoke::smoke::smoke::smoke::s moke:

ORGASMATRON
08-01-2009, 10:13 PM
:lol:

Action Jackson
08-01-2009, 10:20 PM
:apumpkin::hysteric:http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-merv/beerfunnel.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-merv/fishing.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-merv/lh.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

lessthanjake
08-01-2009, 10:31 PM
Ahem! we have been through this many times, if you fail to acknowledge one important factor that ties in with the other, that is just spin doctoring, because it doesn't follow a particular viewpoint.

The fact is that they are intertwined.

They are intertwined, but I think everything basically stems from better technology.

Better rackets mean you can put more topspin on the ball. More topspin means you can hit the ball with more pace and still have it land in and you can also use more angles. More pace and sharper angles makes it harder to get to other player's shots. If the court is fast, this can make points end way too quickly such that it is boring. Probably more importantly, better racket strings, conditioning, and fitness make serves a lot faster nowadays. People's reflexes (to return serve) have not improved over the last few decades, so on really fast surfaces, serving would dominate even more than before, likey making it boring.

So because of that, the faster surfaces have been slowed down to stop points from ending painfully quickly. The result of slower courts is that players have more time than before to set up their passing shots when an opponent comes to the net. Again, reflexes/volleying skills have not been bolstered by technology, so on the whole, this just makes coming to the net less effective than before. As a result, serve and volley play is less effective than before. Because it is less effective, less players do it, and baseline play dominates.

So then, the question is, what type of baseline play will people play? Because of better rackets, again, more topspin is possible. As stated before, topspin opens up more angles and allows more pace on baseline shots. Even with slower courts, this makes it generally more effective to be an aggressive baseliner than a defensive one because attacking is more effective when sharper angles and more pace are possible. As a result, aggressive baselining is predominant over defensive baselining.

Aggressive baselining is basically traditionally what hard-court tennis is. So the above explanation is why that is the dominant way to play tennis now.

Action Jackson
08-01-2009, 10:48 PM
Keep it going Jake.

http://www.blooddeepthemovie.com/images/dead%20horse%20logo.jpg

Sapeod
08-01-2009, 10:50 PM
Jake. Seriously. Give it a break :rolleyes: Nobody cares.

lessthanjake
08-01-2009, 10:52 PM
That wasnt the same argument. I was just explaining the reason tennis has gotten more homogeneous in style than before.