[Hyman]

Nadal’s level on clay is the highest level ever known in tennis history, not only on clay but also in any other surface. No one in history has ever comed close to reach such a high level.

His level on clay is objectivally the highest ever reached by any other tennis player on any other surface.

The W/L ratio is incredible.

1) Nadal 92%
2) Borg 86%
3) Lendl 81%
5) Djokovic 80%
14) Federer 76%

If you consider hard the W/L ratio is really tight:

1) Laver 85%
2) Djokovic 84%
3) Federer 83.5%
4) Connors 83%
5) Lendl 83%

Theres not a great difference between them.

On Grass Federer is only the 7th player with the best record.

So really we can say that Nadal is the man who has reached the highest level tennis has ever known. Do you agree?

 

[BodyServe]

Yes, it is really something else to beat him on clay.

He is in a league of his own.

 

[Budadiii]

From 2006-2010 he only lost tired in Hamburg '07, injured Rome '08, tired Madrid '09, hurt RG '09.

Insane.

 

[swissmaestro92]

Correct, his achievements are unmatched in that case and will never be matched in the future of the game.

 

[IBM]

I think stating Nadal on clay is the best version of a tennis player ever is a tautology

 

[doubletrollt]

Nadal’s level on clay is the highest level ever known in tennis history, not only on clay but also in any other surface. No one in history has ever comed close to reach such a high level.

His level on clay is objectivally the highest ever reached by any other tennis player on any other surface.

The W/L ratio is incredible.

1) Nadal 92%
2) Borg 86%
3) Lendl 81%
5) Djokovic 80%
14) Federer 76%

...

Borg was not allowed 35-40 seconds between the points whenever needed though, so, his six RG by the 25th birthday are greater than Nadal's.

If Borg had been allowed 35-40 seconds from his teenage age, maybe he would've played on the clay till his 30th birthday.

 

[Bella&Mirka]

tired in Hamburg '07, injured Rome '08, tired Madrid '09, hurt RG '09.

LOL

 

[bhdtl]

One may be able to say he has the highest sustained peak on a particular surface. However, he also has the advantage being that clay is always slow and high-bouncing. A hard-court can be slow, medium, fast, low-bouncing, high-bouncing, indoor, etcetera. Where is the variation in clay? And because there are more hard courts, it is probably safe to assume the competition is much more fierce on a hard court.

Nadal is the greatest clay court player I have ever seen, but let's not pretend there is a lot of variation on the clay he plays on. Would he be anywhere close to dominant had clay been fast and low-bouncing? I have my doubts.

 

[enlightenedth]

I think this is agreed by all humans, beating Nadal on clay is the biggest challenge in tennis.

 

[Servebots=GOAT]

It’s kind of a given Dull on clay is toughest to beat but it’s a given that it’s much harder to upset top players on clay than grass cause grass allows players to take the racquet out of their opponents hands whereas clay is just an endurance pushing battle which Dull always wins. Federer’s consistency on grass is pretty remarkable considering grass is way harder to be consistent on as attacking players on their game can blow you off the court.

 

[VyRa | esq.]

Emperor of Clay, GOD OF CLAY, call him how you want. It is a joy watching him moving on the red dirt and producing incredible defensive and even more incredible offense, winners from every corner and painting all those lines with high spinning balls and mental cojones. 0-40 or break balls nearly every average service game from his opponents.

I was one of the lucky ones, got the ticket to watch him live on Chatrier last year, destroying Federer in the semifinal once again in straight sets.