[wesleywilson112]

Why is it that clay is always considered to be federers least favourite surface? The stats may suggest otherwise, for example, he has made just as many finals in the French open as he has at the assie open. The fact that he has lost each time to surely the greatest clay court player ever is unfortunate for him,but. Imagine there was no nadal, federer has shown that he can beat everybody else on clay and surely would then have dominated clay almost as much as nadal himself. Adding maybe another 4 French opens to his his already remarkable 17 gs. I think sometimes people feel that nadal is unfortunate that he played during federers era for the most part, but I think it is the opposite. Federer would surely be unquestionably the greatest ever had nadal not been around to deny him those French open titles which I think most people should agree he would have been very likely to win. This would have put federer on 20+ gs and possibly 3 career grand slams having one the other 3 titles for the year on 3 separate occasions.

[StingSuperior]

IF we are talking prime Federer, I agree that there probably wasnt a huge preference between surfaces. But if we are talking current Federer who relies on finishing points quicker, clay is definitely his worst

[alypen]

From what I understand, Federer virtually grew up, professionally speaking, on clay. But then, so did Andy Murray.