PDA

View Full Version : The second best clay courter in the world?


Cesc Fabregas
04-06-2009, 12:07 PM
We all know who the best clay courter in the world is who do you guys think the second best is? Last year it was Djokovic winning Rome semis in Monte Carlo semis in Hamburg ( giving Nadal his toughest match of the season ) and getting to the semis of the French before losing to Nadal.

thejoe
04-06-2009, 12:10 PM
A toss-up between Federer, Djokovic, and most probably Rafa with his right hand :p

Andreev should probably get a mention, in the sense that he has all the tools, and is one of the few to have beaten Rafa on the red stuff.

nadal
04-06-2009, 12:11 PM
David Ferrer if he focuses more

bladepdb
04-06-2009, 12:16 PM
Ferrer and Andreev have the games...Fed and Djokovic have showed us results. Results aren't always wins but rather quality of the matches.

I'm going to have to go with Djokovic for this year, namely due to mental confidence on clay compared with Fed. Djoker may just have had a good season from last year's AO momentum though, so it's a tossup. I would just personally say Djokovic because Fed is mentally destroyed right now.

Cesc Fabregas
04-06-2009, 12:18 PM
David Ferrer if he focuses more

Yeah hes a my dark horse to do well this clay court season.

dextor
04-06-2009, 12:19 PM
Federer if you look at the last 3 FOs.

Nadalfan89
04-06-2009, 12:21 PM
Toni Nadal. Then perhaps Nadal's little sister. Then Ferrer if he's playing his best.

batz
04-06-2009, 12:22 PM
Rafa's shadow.

Cesc Fabregas
04-06-2009, 12:23 PM
Almagro is a decent shout as well.

PimpMyGame
04-06-2009, 12:25 PM
I'll hold judgement until I see how Murray does this clay court season.

sheq
04-06-2009, 12:53 PM
Rafa's shadow.

that was great :)

h7hugo
04-06-2009, 01:52 PM
Almagro is a decent shout as well.

Gil beated Almagro in Brazil ahah

deltox
04-06-2009, 01:56 PM
if Rafa looses the FO this year is the world gonna cease to exist lol..

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 01:59 PM
If you mean right now, it can only be Federer: he won Hamburg 4 times, made the finals of Monte-Carlo and Rome and was the finalist at RG for the last 3 years. Difficult to argue against those facts.

SaintClaires
04-06-2009, 02:01 PM
If you mean right now, it can only be Federer: he won Hamburg 4 times, made the finals of Monte-Carlo and Rome and was the finalist at RG for the last 3 years. Difficult to argue against those facts.


I agree. This shouldn't even be an argument.

helloworld
04-06-2009, 02:06 PM
Fed is the second best right now, but he's still light years below Nadal. It could be double or triple bagel this time if they meet in the finals again.

gj011
04-06-2009, 02:07 PM
Djokovic was the second best clay court player last season.

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 02:13 PM
Djokovic was the second best clay court player last season.
Was he? He was pretty close indeed, it will be interesting to see what happens this year.

Gugafan
04-06-2009, 02:15 PM
Davydenko is up there. Though, injurys may results in his downfall this year.

Monfils on paper has the tools to be the second best after Nadal. He could be a real threat this year.

deltox
04-06-2009, 02:15 PM
i expect to see monfils make a great showing this clay season. he will make the biggest standings jump thru the clay season, maybe not the top 3 clay courters on tour but his points will reflect a good solid clay season

and of course, if and i mean IF Davy can fully recover he always has great wheels on clay as well.

clayman2000
04-06-2009, 02:19 PM
Last year Djokovic was stronger than Federer, who was unlucky that Nadal was in his half of the draw for the RG, and Hamburg.

Niether have played great this season, but Djokovic doesnt have the attitude of a fighter, and while Federer is no Nadal in the mental strength category, he has shown fight, will and belief in his career.

For me, this will vary by tournament. Djokovic will be very ****ed if he gets Rafa in his side of the draw

Leublu tennis
04-06-2009, 02:21 PM
Me? Well, not likely although I love clay.

grafrules
04-06-2009, 02:21 PM
Davydenko is up there. Though, injurys may results in his downfall this year.

Monfils on paper has the tools to be the second best after Nadal. He could be a real threat this year.

I disagree with you completely on Monfils. Roger was in total sh1t form at last years French Open so if Monfils couldnt even beat him there while having the tournament of his life so far, he will have a hard time ever beating him there. Djokovic and Davydenko would be extremely hard for Monfils to beat on clay as well. Would Monfils even stand much chance vs a fresh Ferrer? Remember Ferrer was coming off a couple 5 setters before playing Monfils at last years French and was completely spent.

Nadal_Freak
04-06-2009, 02:23 PM
It's still Djokovic imo.

thalivest
04-06-2009, 02:28 PM
It's still Djokovic imo.

LOL! It never was Djokovic. How can it "still" be something it never was it the first place.

Nadal_Freak
04-06-2009, 05:49 PM
LOL! It never was Djokovic. How can it "still" be something it never was it the first place.
6-1 6-3 6-0. You'll never see Djokovic get beat down like that. lol Djokovic was definitely the second best claycourter last year.

saram
04-06-2009, 05:53 PM
Roger Federer....

SaintClaires
04-06-2009, 05:54 PM
Hold on......does the thread ask who was the 2nd best last year, or, in general, who is the 2nd best clay-courter?

GameSampras
04-06-2009, 05:54 PM
Is there one? Nadal is First. The rest are tied for last :)

Nadal_Freak
04-06-2009, 05:55 PM
Hold on......does the thread ask who was the 2nd best last year, or, in general, who is the 2nd best clay-courter?
It sounds like present day. No matches have been played on clay except Davis Cup so it is mainly speculation.

saram
04-06-2009, 05:55 PM
Federer if you look at the last 3 FOs.

Last FOUR FO's...he lost to eventual champion, Rafa in the semis in 2005....

SaintClaires
04-06-2009, 05:56 PM
Last FOUR FO's...he lost to eventual champion, Rafa in the semis in 2005....


I agree. The FO says it all. On the other hand, the Joker lost more respectively to Rafa last year than did Feddy Teddy.

saram
04-06-2009, 05:56 PM
Hold on......does the thread ask who was the 2nd best last year, or, in general, who is the 2nd best clay-courter?

Why did you steal my avatar.......:shock::twisted:

GameSampras
04-06-2009, 05:57 PM
Last FOUR FO's...he lost to eventual champion, Rafa in the semis in 2005....

Jeesh 4 years of losing to the same player at the same slam. Nadal or not. After 4 or 5 years a great player should figure out a game plan or strategy to get at least ONE WIN off one player at ONE SLAM in the span of 4 years.

SaintClaires
04-06-2009, 05:57 PM
Why did you steal my avatar.......:shock::twisted:


Are you mad? :cry::cry:


Should I change it back to something else?

saram
04-06-2009, 05:58 PM
Hold on......does the thread ask who was the 2nd best last year, or, in general, who is the 2nd best clay-courter?

If we are saying 'in general'...I'd throw Guga/Bjorg/Roger in there tied for second.

saram
04-06-2009, 05:59 PM
Are you mad? :cry::cry:

Nope. Not at all...:)

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 05:59 PM
Why did you steal my avatar.......:shock::twisted:
He steals every single avatar. That's his hobby for the day :???:

GameSampras
04-06-2009, 05:59 PM
If we are saying 'in general'...I'd throw Guga/Bjorg/Roger in there tied for second.

No Roger doesnt make the cut. Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Wilander, Vilas and a few others all ahead of Roger

SaintClaires
04-06-2009, 05:59 PM
Nope. Not at all...:)


That's a relief!


I'm so used to people getting mad at me after I went crazy on these forums when I first joined :)

JeMar
04-06-2009, 06:00 PM
If we're talking about "in general," I don't think Federer would be in the top 5.

SaintClaires
04-06-2009, 06:01 PM
Maybe the thread is talking about right now, in general.

thalivest
04-06-2009, 06:02 PM
6-1 6-3 6-0. You'll never see Djokovic get beat down like that. lol Djokovic was definitely the second best claycourter last year.

If that is your sole argument then you fail miserably. A number of things:

1. Tennis is all about matchups. Nadal is simply a bad matchup for Federer, moreso than he is for Djokovic and many others. Heck Blake has a better record vs Nadal than Federer, I guess Blake is a much better hard court player than Federer by your logic.

2. Federer was in absolutely horrible form at last years French Open, probably the worst tennis he ever played on clay despite scraping past an easy draw to the final. Even struggling hard to beat a clown semifinalist like Monfils.

3. That match was the 10th time Federer and Nadal have met on clay. Nadal had never come anywhere close to beating Federer that badly until that 10th match on the surface. If Djokovic and Nadal play 10 times on clay Nadal will probably smack Djokovic down that badly on clay atleast once. Federer has taken atleast 1 set off of Nadal in 7 of their 10 matches on clay, beaten him once and had a match point another time. Djokovic has managed this vs Nadal in only 1 of their 5 matches on clay, never coming close to winning.

I dislike both Federer and Djokovic so it is easy for me to be objective comparing the two, which cant be said for you as you basically admitted Djokovic is your 2nd favorite player and your Roger hate borders on obsessive. Djokovic has no claim to having ever being the 2nd best player on clay up to now. He has never beaten Federer on clay and last year in their only match on clay Djokovic was getting his butt whooped so quit like he always does when the going gets tough. When he does something that gives him any valid argument for being the 2nd best on clay, and that has to be alot more than giving Nadal one closer match than Federer then you will have a point.

Djokovic has gone 0-2 vs David Ferrer on clay since his prime began in the spring of 2007. In fact he went 0-5 in sets vs Ferrer in those two matches. Do you think David Ferrer would ever straight set Federer in a best 3-of-5 set match on clay the way he apparently can do to Djokovic, ROTFL!

GameSampras
04-06-2009, 06:02 PM
Maybe the thread is talking about right now, in general.

Now you stole Veronquiem's avatar. LOL

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 06:02 PM
No Roger doesnt make the cut. Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Wilander, Vilas and a few others all ahead of Roger
In general, Roger wouldn't even make top 10!

SaintClaires
04-06-2009, 06:02 PM
Now you stole Veronquiem's avatar. LOL

You're next :twisted::twisted:

gj011
04-06-2009, 06:03 PM
If we are saying 'in general'...I'd throw Guga/Bjorg/Roger in there tied for second.

Borg and Guga tied with Federer for second :shock:. Are you serious?

Borg is still the clay GOAT in front of Nadal, Guga is about third and Federer is many many places below.

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 06:03 PM
Now you stole Veronquiem's avatar. LOL
Lol, I don't know why but I knew my turn was next...

JeMar
04-06-2009, 06:04 PM
Nobody ever steals The Rocket.

GameSampras
04-06-2009, 06:05 PM
Nobody ever steals The Rocket.

There it goes. :twisted:

gj011
04-06-2009, 06:06 PM
Thealivest is again on his Djokovic bashing spree. Guy is so biased, full of hate, and delusional that it is becoming quite funny.

Djokovic was the second best clay court player last season and his hate will not change that.

JeMar
04-06-2009, 06:06 PM
Over the last five years, I'd say Federer has by far been the #2 clay court player in the world, but that's probably gonna chance this year. Murray will probably take 2 or maybe Djokovic if he ever gets his crap together.

There went gj011's avatar, haha.

thalivest
04-06-2009, 06:08 PM
No Roger doesnt make the cut. Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Wilander, Vilas and a few others all ahead of Roger

I would rate Roger as the 7th or 8th best clay courter since 1990. Behind in no particular order Courier, Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten, Ferrero, and Nadal. Sort of even with Agassi for 7th. Definitely ahead of Kafelnikov, Moya, Costa, Gaudio despite that those players won a French Open. I agree all time he wouldnt even in the top 20 on clay.

gj011
04-06-2009, 06:09 PM
There went gj011's avatar, haha.

He is funny :)

SaintClaires
04-06-2009, 06:09 PM
Wow, I never thought that was Tipsarevic!


http://cornedbeefhash.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/janko-tipsarevic-hookah.jpg

JeMar
04-06-2009, 06:10 PM
I miss Albert Costa.:(

JeMar
04-06-2009, 06:10 PM
Are those... suspenders??? He just won himself another fan!

Nadal_Freak
04-06-2009, 06:11 PM
Djokovic got to the Semis at Monte Carlo, won in Rome, Semis in Hamburg, and Semis at RG. 2 of those 3 losses were against Nadal. He was much more competitive against Nadal. He was sick in Monte Carlo so you can't really count that match. I always felt Djokovic is just as good on clay as hardcourts. He likes the ball up high and moves very well on clay.

thalivest
04-06-2009, 06:11 PM
Thealivest is again on his Djokovic bashing spree. Guy is so biased, full of hate, and delusional that it is becoming quite funny.

Djokovic was the second best clay court player last season and his hate will not change that.

There are no facts that back up your delusional claims of your hero being the 2nd best clay courter last year or any year. Those are the real facts, and all your jerking off to a Novak Djokovic photo in your room will not change that.

JeMar
04-06-2009, 06:13 PM
Yikes, that's not pretty.

Nadal_Freak
04-06-2009, 06:13 PM
1. Nadal
2. Djokovic
3. Federer
4. Ferrer
5. Monfils/Davydenko

JeMar
04-06-2009, 06:14 PM
I'd put about 5 players ahead of Davydenko on clay.

Ferrer's performance on clay is largely overrated. He didn't do anything last year and all four of his career clay court titles have come at itty bitty events.

grafrules
04-06-2009, 06:14 PM
If that is your sole argument then you fail miserably. A number of things:

1. Tennis is all about matchups. Nadal is simply a bad matchup for Federer, moreso than he is for Djokovic and many others. Heck Blake has a better record vs Nadal than Federer, I guess Blake is a much better hard court player than Federer by your logic.

2. Federer was in absolutely horrible form at last years French Open, probably the worst tennis he ever played on clay despite scraping past an easy draw to the final. Even struggling hard to beat a clown semifinalist like Monfils.

3. That match was the 10th time Federer and Nadal have met on clay. Nadal had never come anywhere close to beating Federer that badly until that 10th match on the surface. If Djokovic and Nadal play 10 times on clay Nadal will probably smack Djokovic down that badly on clay atleast once. Federer has taken atleast 1 set off of Nadal in 7 of their 10 matches on clay, beaten him once and had a match point another time. Djokovic has managed this vs Nadal in only 1 of their 5 matches on clay, never coming close to winning.

I dislike both Federer and Djokovic so it is easy for me to be objective comparing the two, which cant be said for you as you basically admitted Djokovic is your 2nd favorite player and your Roger hate borders on obsessive. Djokovic has no claim to having ever being the 2nd best player on clay up to now. He has never beaten Federer on clay and last year in their only match on clay Djokovic was getting his butt whooped so quit like he always does when the going gets tough. When he does something that gives him any valid argument for being the 2nd best on clay, and that has to be alot more than giving Nadal one closer match than Federer then you will have a point.

Djokovic has gone 0-2 vs David Ferrer on clay since his prime began in the spring of 2007. In fact he went 0-5 in sets vs Ferrer in those two matches. Do you think David Ferrer would ever straight set Federer in a best 3-of-5 set match on clay the way he apparently can do to Djokovic, ROTFL!

Very well said. Only a trolling loser like Nadal_Freak or gj011 would even try to argue Djokovic as the 2nd best clay courter in the world.

saram
04-06-2009, 06:14 PM
No Roger doesnt make the cut. Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Wilander, Vilas and a few others all ahead of Roger

Roger HAS to make the cut--He did a few things your idol NEVER did...

1. Made three finals at the FO
2. Made the semis at the FO four times
3. Lost to the eventual champion five times at the FO.

That is a stronger resume than some that you listed. Courier, Muster, Wilander, Vilas--all great players. But without Rafa in their way....

VivalaVida
04-06-2009, 06:15 PM
I can understand where people are coming from about djokovic being 2nd best but seriously there is empirical evidence for this. He lost his only meeting to fed on clay last year. When Novak beats fed, I will believe it.

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 06:16 PM
Djokovic got to the Semis at Monte Carlo, won in Rome, Semis in Hamburg, and Semis at RG. 2 of those 3 losses were against Nadal. He was much more competitive against Nadal. He was sick in Monte Carlo so you can't really count that match. I always felt Djokovic is just as good on clay as hardcourts. He likes the ball up high and moves very well on clay.
You could add that Rome is a bigger title than Estoril :wink:

oneguy21
04-06-2009, 06:16 PM
Thealivest is again on his Djokovic bashing spree. Guy is so biased, full of hate, and delusional that it is becoming quite funny.

Djokovic was the second best clay court player last season and his hate will not change that.

Get a hold of yourself. You're the one who is delusional. You have this belief that the world is out to get Djokovic. The fact is overall, Federer is the better claycourter. You can't argue against his stats on clay.

I have to agree that last year, Djokovic had a better season clay, but overall, Federer leads Djokovic in clay court accomplishments by a milestone.

grafrules
04-06-2009, 06:16 PM
I would rate Roger as the 7th or 8th best clay courter since 1990. Behind in no particular order Courier, Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten, Ferrero, and Nadal. Sort of even with Agassi for 7th. Definitely ahead of Kafelnikov, Moya, Costa, Gaudio despite that those players won a French Open. I agree all time he wouldnt even in the top 20 on clay.

I disagree with you on Ferrero. I would rank Federer over him. If Federer were in his prime on clay from 2002-2004 instead like Ferrero he would have won than 1 French Open. Muster and Bruguera had short primes on clay so not even sure on them. I agree Courier, Kuerten, and Nadal are all definitely over Federer on clay though as well as Wilander, Lendl, Borg, Vilas, and some others pre Open era.

saram
04-06-2009, 06:17 PM
In general, Roger wouldn't even make top 10!

See--this is where you lose credibility in your posts. Not that you don't say intelligent things, but your blatant hatred towards Roger and his accomplishments really discredits just about everything else you post that is intelligent.

To ensure you get credibility in your posts--you need to be able to put your heart away from the equation and speak/post sensibly.

GameSampras
04-06-2009, 06:17 PM
Roger HAS to make the cut--He did a few things your idol NEVER did...

1. Made three finals at the FO
2. Made the semis at the FO four times
3. Lost to the eventual champion five times at the FO.

That is a stronger resume than some that you listed. Courier, Muster, Wilander, Vilas--all great players. But without Rafa in their way....


You are forgetting that this is a much weaker field of clay court depth than years prior. FAR WEAKER than the 90s clay court field. 3 RG finals sure. Did you see the types of draws he had to get there those 3 years? He didnt play anyone on the level of Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Guga, etc to get there. He would of never even made an RG final if he had.

SaintClaires
04-06-2009, 06:18 PM
See--this is where you lose credibility in your posts. Not that you don't say intelligent things, but your blatant hatred towards Roger and his accomplishments really discredits just about everything else you post that is intelligent.

To ensure you get credibility in your posts--you need to be able to put your heart away from the equation and speak/post sensibly.


Ouch :shock::shock::shock:

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 06:19 PM
Roger HAS to make the cut--He did a few things your idol NEVER did...

1. Made three finals at the FO
2. Made the semis at the FO four times
3. Lost to the eventual champion five times at the FO.

That is a stronger resume than some that you listed. Courier, Muster, Wilander, Vilas--all great players. But without Rafa in their way....
He lost 4 times to the eventual winner (not 5).

Nadal_Freak
04-06-2009, 06:19 PM
You could add that Rome is a bigger title than Estoril :wink:
Yep. Djokovic>Federer on clay in 2008-forever. ;)

VivalaVida
04-06-2009, 06:20 PM
No Roger doesnt make the cut. Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Wilander, Vilas and a few others all ahead of Roger
Muster? hahaha. He won 1 FO over Michael Chang. Federer on the other hand, Has lost to the eventual champion four years in a row and that happens to be nadal. You can bet the house that guys like muster, Guga, and brugera wouldn't have won a single FO had they played nadal. As a matter of fact, they would have recieved a couple of bagels and breadsticks. I am not making nadal an excuse for federer, but I will say that federer's opposition at RG is unmatched by the guys you mentioned.

JeMar
04-06-2009, 06:20 PM
Get a hold of yourself. You're the one who is delusional. You have this belief that the world is out to get Djokovic. The fact is overall, Federer is the better claycourter. You can't argue against his stats on clay.

I have to agree that last year, Djokovic had a better season clay, but overall, Federer leads Djokovic in clay court accomplishments by a milestone.

I agree with you, but this is a milestone:

http://www.campbelltown.nsw.gov.au/upload/pbqkf42544/Milestone.jpg

You mean "by a mile." :)

oneguy21
04-06-2009, 06:21 PM
See--this is where you lose credibility in your posts. Not that you don't say intelligent things, but your blatant hatred towards Roger and his accomplishments really discredits just about everything else you post that is intelligent.

To ensure you get credibility in your posts--you need to be able to put your heart away from the equation and speak/post sensibly.

I agree with you 100%. When you post something as ridiculous as that, you know that your attitude toward players is distorting reality.

GameSampras
04-06-2009, 06:21 PM
Fed(2005-2008) as had to through......

Sela, Almagro, Gonzalez(twice), almost 30 yr old Moya, Hanescu, Hartfiled, Falla, Massu, Berdych, Ancic(twice), Nalbandian(was actually down 6-3,3-0 when David got hurt), Russell, Ascione, Starace, Youzhny, Robredo, Davydenko, Querry, Montanes, Benneteau and Monfils before getting to Nadal.



Jesus. Sampras could have managed a French Open final or two if these were his draws.

thalivest
04-06-2009, 06:22 PM
He was sick in Monte Carlo so you can't really count that match.

This argument holds no grounds at all. Djokovic is the last one who gets any benefit of doubt for any match he retires in with a so called ailment. He basically holds the record on tour for mid match retirements, and even once admited to faking cramps (first round vs Monfils at the 2005 U.S Open) to buy some recovery time since he was tired. He went on court, he walked off the loser, his opponent on that day Federer won. End of story.

I always felt Djokovic is just as good on clay as hardcourts. He likes the ball up high and moves very well on clay.

Sorry I disagree here completely. Do you think Ferrer would straight set Djokovic in straight sets in a best 3-of-5 on hard courts? Djokovic's results have always been better overall on hard courts than on clay.

saram
04-06-2009, 06:22 PM
He lost 4 times to the eventual winner (not 5).

Did he not lose to Guga as well in a first or second round? Time for me to research that one...

GameSampras
04-06-2009, 06:23 PM
Muster? hahaha. He won 1 FO over Michael Chang. Federer on the other hand, Has lost to the eventual champion four years in a row and that happens to be nadal. You can bet the house that guys like muster, Guga, and brugera wouldn't have won a single FO had they played nadal. As a matter of fact, they would have recieved a couple of bagels and breadsticks. I am not making nadal an excuse for federer, but I will say that federer's opposition at RG is unmatched by the guys you mentioned.

You have to be ridiculous to think Fed could touch a prime Muster on clay.

oneguy21
04-06-2009, 06:23 PM
I agree with you, but this is a milestone:

http://www.campbelltown.nsw.gov.au/upload/pbqkf42544/Milestone.jpg

You mean "by a mile." :)

Wow, I must have been high.

GameSampras
04-06-2009, 06:24 PM
Did he not lose to Guga as well in a first or second round? Time for me to research that one...

Roger? Roger was destroyed by plastic hipped old man Guga at the French in 04 .

Nadal_Freak
04-06-2009, 06:26 PM
This argument holds no grounds at all. Djokovic is the last one who gets any benefit of doubt for any match he retires in with a so called ailment. He basically holds the record on tour for mid match retirements, and even once admited to faking cramps (first round vs Monfils at the 2005 U.S Open) to buy some recovery time since he was tired. He went on court, he walked off the loser, his opponent on that day Federer won. End of story.



Sorry I disagree here completely. Do you think Ferrer would straight set Djokovic in straight sets in a best 3-of-5 on hard courts? Djokovic's results have always been better overall on hard courts than on clay.
I put Ferrer as the the 4th best clay courter. He is definitely better on that surface though he can play well on hardcourts until he faces a player with weapons. Djokovic didn't have much preparation for Davis Cup and he usually needs some time to get to his best tennis. He beat Federer in Miami so he will do it again on clay. :D

VivalaVida
04-06-2009, 06:26 PM
btw LOL at people thinking djokovic is better because he got more games on Rafa at RG. If that is the case, then Andreev was a better player than both djokovic and Murray because he took fed to 5 sets, right ? :lol:

Nadal_Freak
04-06-2009, 06:29 PM
btw LOL at people thinking djokovic is better because he got more games on Rafa at RG. If that is the case, then Andreev was a better player than both djokovic and Murray because he took fed to 5 sets, right ? :lol:
That's the only evidence we have to go by in last years RG. They both lose to Nadal and beat everyone else until that point. Federer always gets to be on the opposite side of the draw. Lucky for him or he would be going out in the Semis and be the number 3 player.

VivalaVida
04-06-2009, 06:29 PM
You have to be ridiculous to think Fed could touch a prime Muster on clay.
LOL. Yeah, because it is so ridiculous to think that Federer can beat a guy who reached 1 RG final and won against chang as compared federer, who reach 3 RG finals and lost to Rafael Nadal

Nadal_Freak
04-06-2009, 06:30 PM
LOL. Yeah, because it is so ridiculous to think that Federer can beat a guy who reached 1 RG final and won against chang as compared federer, who reach 3 RG finals and lost to Rafael Nadal
Agreed Fed 2005-2007 would've beaten Muster.

GameSampras
04-06-2009, 06:31 PM
LOL. Yeah, because it is so ridiculous to think that Federer can beat a guy who reached 1 RG final and won against chang as compared federer, who reach 3 RG finals and lost to Rafael Nadal

I would like Prime Muster's chances of BEATING Nadal at the French. Not losing. Definitely not losing to Fed. Muster was a much deadlier clay courter than Fed ever was.

GameSampras
04-06-2009, 06:31 PM
Agreed Fed 2005-2007 would've beaten Muster.

Not 96 Muster. No way in hell. I dont think you guys realize how good Muster really was.

Nadal_Freak
04-06-2009, 06:31 PM
I would like Prime Muster's chances of BEATING Nadal at the French. Not losing. Definitely not losing to Fed. Muster was a much deadlier clay courter than Fed ever was.
Yawn. Only one FO yet he was so unbeatable? :rolleyes:

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 06:32 PM
See--this is where you lose credibility in your posts. Not that you don't say intelligent things, but your blatant hatred towards Roger and his accomplishments really discredits just about everything else you post that is intelligent.

To ensure you get credibility in your posts--you need to be able to put your heart away from the equation and speak/post sensibly.
Excuse me? What big tournaments has Federer won on clay? Hamburg (which a lot of clay specialists used to skip for a number of reasons, which is probably why it ended up being downgraded), he has never won Monte-Carlo, Rome (even when Nadal was NOT in his way, he lost 5 times in Monte-Carlo to other players than Nadal including to Gasquet in 2005 and he lost 7 times in Rome to other players including Volandri and Stepanek!!!) and of course he has never won RG even though he played it 6 times before Nadal even started playing it and you want to make him top 10?? Lol, even Djoko has won Rome and that was during Nadal's prime right?
My credibility is not at stake here, yours is. Federer is great on all surfaces but he's not top 10 of all time on clay, not by any stretch of the imagination.

VivalaVida
04-06-2009, 06:32 PM
I would like Prime Muster's chances of BEATING Nadal at the French. Not losing. Definitely not losing to Fed. Muster was a much deadlier clay courter than Fed ever was.
Based on last years RG, I would say Muster would recieve nice helping of
http://www.jrkees01.com/assets/bagel.jpg

and
http://images.inmagine.com/img/imagesource/is415/is415032.jpg

GameSampras
04-06-2009, 06:34 PM
Yawn. Only one FO yet he was so unbeatable? :rolleyes:


Have u ever seen Muster play on clay? I bet u havent. Hes one of the few players along with Guga these past 15-20 years who would actually have a good chance of taken Nadal out at the French if he was on his game

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 06:34 PM
Did he not lose to Guga as well in a first or second round? Time for me to research that one...
Yes in 2004 but Guga was not the eventual champion that year.

thalivest
04-06-2009, 06:34 PM
Roger? Roger was destroyed by plastic hipped old man Guga at the French in 04 .

You cant use a single match argument alone to make your case on anything. Everything has a bad day. Kuerten as defending champion lost to 18 year old Safin at the French Open, the same Safin who a pre-prime Federer destroyed twice in a row on clay clay in his prime in 2002. Kuerten in his prime also lost a best of 5 Davis Cup match in Brazil in straight sets to Lleyton Hewitt. Muster in his prime lost to both Michael Stich and Patrick Rafter at the French Open.

VivalaVida
04-06-2009, 06:35 PM
Not 96 Muster. No way in hell. I dont think you guys realize how good Muster really was.
Federer is no chump on the red stuff either. Maybe I am underestimating Muster, but you always underestimate federer at everything so I guess it evens out.

Nadal_Freak
04-06-2009, 06:36 PM
Have u ever seen Muster play on clay? I bet u havent
Yeah I have. He is a poor mans Nadal and can be taken to even on clay. If Michael Stich could do it, Federer definitely could've.

thalivest
04-06-2009, 06:38 PM
You have to be ridiculous to think Fed could touch a prime Muster on clay.

You are the ridiculous one here. Patrick Rafter has even beaten prime Muster (1994-1996) at the French Open. So has Michael Stich. Are you going to argue one of those are better than Federer on clay? If those guys have beaten a prime Muster at the French, Federer definitely had a shot of doing so.

Oh yeah werent you the one arguing 57th ranked Muster was in his prime when he lost to Sampras at the French Open in 1991, LOL! So now are you going to even argue Sampras is better than Federer on clay so is capable of things that Federer wouldnt be on the surface.

Muster at his prime is just a weaker version of Nadal who chokes at the French Open, and Federer always had very competitive matches with Nadal on clay until this year.

saram
04-06-2009, 06:41 PM
Roger? Roger was destroyed by plastic hipped old man Guga at the French in 04 .

You're right--and my bad...

The only two people Roger has lost to in the last five years either had the nickname 'Guga' or 'Rafa'...impressive blokes to lose to at the FO.

And, figures a guy with the name 'Sampras' would know of Roger's clay accomplishments....:twisted:

GameSampras
04-06-2009, 06:42 PM
You are the ridiculous one here. Patrick Rafter has even beaten prime Muster (1994-1996) at the French Open. So has Michael Stich. Are you going to argue one of those are better than Federer on clay? If those guys have beaten a prime Muster at the French, Federer definitely had a shot of doing so.

Oh yeah werent you the one arguing 57th ranked Muster was in his prime when he lost to Sampras at the French Open in 1991, LOL! So now are you going to even argue Sampras is better than Federer on clay so is capable of things that Federer wouldnt be on the surface.

Muster at his prime is just a weaker version of Nadal who chokes at the French Open, and Federer always had very competitive matches with Nadal on clay until this year.

Im not denying Muster has his share of erratic and inconsistent play. But to say Fed is better than Muster on clay is a bit farfetched. Muster "on his game" could defeat anyone on clay. ANYONE. Including Nadal or at least give him a damn good match.

I know you are Nadal fan and still dont want to admit that this era has brought forth 1-2 percent talented clay court players but you dont have to be so such a Nadal biased homer. Just because Nadal is dominating this patheic clay field with some obscene winning clay court record doesnt mean he could duplicate this success in a era with actually TALENTED dirtballers. Not 1-2 talented dirtballers and a field of mediocrity such as Ferrer, Monfils, etc. Muster a "weaker version" of Nadal? Gimme a break. Biased Nadal loving at it's finest. Thinking Nadal's domination over this particular clay court field is so impressive.

Lets bring up Nadal French Opens draws these past 4 years and see how pathetic they have truly been. I already brough up Fed's

Mansewerz
04-06-2009, 06:42 PM
Muster? hahaha. He won 1 FO over Michael Chang. Federer on the other hand, Has lost to the eventual champion four years in a row and that happens to be nadal. You can bet the house that guys like muster, Guga, and brugera wouldn't have won a single FO had they played nadal. As a matter of fact, they would have recieved a couple of bagels and breadsticks. I am not making nadal an excuse for federer, but I will say that federer's opposition at RG is unmatched by the guys you mentioned.

See response to GS.

You have to be ridiculous to think Fed could touch a prime Muster on clay.

GS, you do know that Edberg, a serve and volleyer, rocked Muster on clay to get a 4-0 lead on clay. On clay!!! He was 10-0 lifetime with Muster.

I'm sure Federer would beat Muster on clay at times, though the lefty topspin could cause some trouble.

saram
04-06-2009, 06:43 PM
Im not denying Muster has his share of erratic and inconsistent play. But to say Fed is better than Muster on clay is a bit farfetched. Muster "on his game" could defeat anyone on clay. ANYONE. Including Nadal or at least give him a damn good match.



wwwwwRONG!

And I'm not a flaming Rafa fan. But Rafa is the best ever on clay, sorry.

GameSampras
04-06-2009, 06:46 PM
You are the ridiculous one here. Patrick Rafter has even beaten prime Muster (1994-1996) at the French Open. So has Michael Stich. Are you going to argue one of those are better than Federer on clay? If those guys have beaten a prime Muster at the French, Federer definitely had a shot of doing so.

Oh yeah werent you the one arguing 57th ranked Muster was in his prime when he lost to Sampras at the French Open in 1991, LOL! So now are you going to even argue Sampras is better than Federer on clay so is capable of things that Federer wouldnt be on the surface.

Muster at his prime is just a weaker version of Nadal who chokes at the French Open, and Federer always had very competitive matches with Nadal on clay until this year.

Im not denying Muster has his share of erratic and inconsistent play. But to say Fed is better than Muster on clay is a bit farfetched. Muster "on his game" could defeat anyone on clay. ANYONE. Including Nadal or at least give him a damn good match.

I know you are Nadal fan and still dont want to admit that this era has brought forth 1-2 percent talented clay court players but you dont have to be so such a Nadal biased homer. Just because Nadal is dominating this patheit clay field with some obscene winning clay court record doesnt mean he could duplicate this success in a era with actually TALENTED dirtballers. Not 1-2 talented dirtballers and a field of mediocrity.



Sela, Almagro, Gonzalez(twice), almost 30 yr old Moya, Hanescu, Hartfiled, Falla, Massu, Berdych, Ancic(twice), Nalbandian(was actually down 6-3,3-0 when David got hurt), Russell, Ascione, Starace, Youzhny, Robredo, Davydenko, Querry, Montanes, Benneteau and Monfils before getting to Nadal.


Fed's RG draws and its been PURE TRASH

deltox
04-06-2009, 06:47 PM
The past greats are so hard to debate, many posters here werent even alive or watching tennis during some of the best years in history.

I have thought about it tons the past few weeks, i still see Monfils as the sleeper this clay season. He just has such great movement and forehand i cant see how it would be bad.

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 06:49 PM
LOL. Yeah, because it is so ridiculous to think that Federer can beat a guy who reached 1 RG final and won against chang as compared federer, who reach 3 RG finals and lost to Rafael Nadal
On top of winning RG, Muster won Monte-Carlo, Rome and Barcelona several times in his career. I'm sure he would have beaten Federer in most of their clay encounters if not all.

gj011
04-06-2009, 06:55 PM
Yikes, that's not pretty.

Yes he usually gets nasty when he is beaten by reason and facts. Nothing new.

gj011
04-06-2009, 07:00 PM
Get a hold of yourself. You're the one who is delusional. You have this belief that the world is out to get Djokovic. The fact is overall, Federer is the better claycourter. You can't argue against his stats on clay.

I have to agree that last year, Djokovic had a better season clay, but overall, Federer leads Djokovic in clay court accomplishments by a milestone.

Not the whole world, just some delusional hater posters here.

Also I was talking about last year clay season only, not about career clay court accomplishments. So we agree here.

gj011
04-06-2009, 07:04 PM
last year in their only match on clay Djokovic was getting his butt whooped so quit

You cant use a single match argument alone to make your case on anything. Everything has a bad day.

ROTFL!

10 characters :)

GameSampras
04-06-2009, 07:10 PM
What makes people think Federer is consitantly getting by Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Moya, Rios(1997-99), Kafelnokov when he(2004-08) has lost or struggled mightily with Costa, Bo Jackson hipped Guga, Gasquet, Volandri, Stepanek, Nadal(winning JUST 4 games), Nalbandian(french and 7-6 in the 3rd), Almagro(7-6 in 3rd) Monfils, the guy who was up 4 or 5-1 on Fed in the 3rd.

Who of Courier, Bruguera, muster would struggle with draws Federer as had in Paris 20052008??? Throw in 2004 cuz they'd beat Bo Jackson hipped Guga as well!!!! WHO?????

flying24
04-06-2009, 07:22 PM
Despite the expected proposterous claims of the boards resident psycho Serb **** (I dont even need to give a name and everyone instantly knows who I am speaking of) that Djokovic is somehow the 2nd best clay courter in the world today, this thread is a no brainer at this point. The 2nd best clay courter is clearly Federer until someone else proves otherwise. This might be the year that happens though with Federer struggling. I dont think it will be Djokovic though who is also struggling. It could be Ferrer, could be Davydenko if he recovers and gets over his Federer-phobia, or could be an up and comer like Monfils or Simon.

gj011
04-06-2009, 07:27 PM
Despite the expected proposterous claims of the boards resident psycho Serb **** (I dont even need to give a name and everyone instantly knows who I am speaking of) that Djokovic is somehow the 2nd best clay courter in the world today, this thread is a no brainer at this point. The 2nd best clay courter is clearly Federer until someone else proves otherwise. This might be the year that happens though with Federer struggling. I dont think it will be Djokovic though who is also struggling. It could be Ferrer, could be Davydenko if he recovers and gets over his Federer-phobia, or could be an up and comer like Monfils or Simon.

As I said, when they lose argument and got beaten by the facts and truth, trolls become nasty and nervous and resort to personal insults. Nothing new.

To repeat again, maybe they will get it at the end.
Djokovic was the second best clay court player last season. That is the only truth. End of story.

deltox
04-06-2009, 07:33 PM
the djoker/fed clay argument over last year is fairly debatable believe it or not.

last year

Djoker took 2800 points in the 4 major clay events
Fed took home 3050 points in the same clay events.

So its not a huge margin but Fed by points actually had a marginally better year on clay last season.

VivalaVida
04-06-2009, 07:35 PM
On top of winning RG, Muster won Monte-Carlo, Rome and Barcelona several times in his career. I'm sure he would have beaten Federer in most of their clay encounters if not all.
Federer always (except RG 2008) has pretty close and competitive matches with Rafa. Lots of there matches have been decided by massive leads blown by Roger. If federer could challenge nadal on clay like he did in 2006 and 2007, then I have no doubt in my mind that federer would kick Muster's *** real nice. Btw since people are quick to point out federer's weak competition, why dont you look at the people Muster had to beat in the finals of the MS's, decent but not outrageous. Pretty much every Clay MS fed had reached in the last few years, he has had to play nadal and from what I have seen, Federer can beat any man on any surface except nadal on clay. :) btw- ALL of the matches would be won by Muster? :shock: no way! In that case Muster must be in Nadal's league, which he is not. Federer wins most IMO.

gj011
04-06-2009, 07:36 PM
the djoker/fed clay argument over last year is fairly debatable believe it or not.

last year

Djoker took 2800 points in the 4 major clay events
Fed took home 3050 points in the same clay events.

So its not a huge margin but Fed by points actually had a marginally better year on clay last season.

This is not the right measure in this case, because Djokovic had to face Nadal in SFs in Hamburg and RG, while Federer got a free ride to the final in both cases. Even then points are pretty close.
Djokovic played much more competitive matches against Nadal than Federer.
Also Djokovic won Masters title in Rome.

Because of these factors Djokovic had better season.

grafrules
04-06-2009, 07:39 PM
What makes people think Federer is consitantly getting by Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Moya, Rios(1997-99), Kafelnokov when he(2004-08) has lost or struggled mightily with Costa, Bo Jackson hipped Guga, Gasquet, Volandri, Stepanek, Nadal(winning JUST 4 games), Nalbandian(french and 7-6 in the 3rd), Almagro(7-6 in 3rd) Monfils, the guy who was up 4 or 5-1 on Fed in the 3rd.

Who of Courier, Bruguera, muster would struggle with draws Federer as had in Paris 20052008??? Throw in 2004 cuz they'd beat Bo Jackson hipped Guga as well!!!! WHO?????

You really are a 90s addictive clown. If you were posting your genuine beliefs with no alterior motive I would find it easier to handle your comments, as much as I disagree with their extremes. However we all know the only reason you even care about arguing this so heavily is in an indirect attempt to make your idol's pathetic clay court record somehow look better, especialy compared to Federer's.

I will give you your choice of any 5 year period of all those players you mentioned and then respond by posting all their losses or matches they "struggled" in on clay over those 5 years. Believe me they will flatter Federer by comparision.

Muster has lost to Rafter, Stich, and Mantilla (granted Mantill a was a pretty good clay courter) at the French during what is probably his best ever 5 year stretch of tennis. So yes someone like him would not have been anywhere near certain to go through Federer's draws each year.

Lastly you have no way of knowing whether Muster or Bruguera would have lost to Kuerten in 2004. They were certainly not supposed to lose to an upstart little known Kuerten in 1997, back when he was less than half the player he was from 1999-2001. They still did.

grafrules
04-06-2009, 07:43 PM
Federer always (except RG 2008) has pretty close and competitive matches with Rafa. Lots of there matches have been decided by massive leads blown by Roger. If federer could challenge nadal on clay like he did in 2006 and 2007, then I have no doubt in my mind that federer would kick Muster's *** real nice. Btw since people are quick to point out federer's weak competition, why dont you look at the people Muster had to beat in the finals of the MS's, decent but not outrageous. Pretty much every Clay MS fed had reached in the last few years, he has had to play nadal and from what I have seen, Federer can beat any man on any surface except nadal on clay. :) btw- ALL of the matches would be won by Muster? :shock: no way! In that case Muster must be in Nadal's league, which he is not. Federer wins most IMO.

People talking about past decades players just randomly throw together every player who had part of their prime in that decade and act like they were all playing well around the same time which is ridiculous.

I could see 20 years from now similarily silly talk about Nadal supposably downing a clay court field of Federer, Coria, Ferrero, Kuerten, Costa, Moya, Corretja, just because they all were really good at some point this decade although hardly ever more than 2 or 3 at the same time. Just as silly as talking about say Kuerten being in his prime on clay at a similar time to Courier, LOL!

veroniquem
04-07-2009, 03:36 AM
I think the argument here has to do with the difference between consistency and being the best. Federer has been very consistent on clay for sure but he has not WON nearly as much as Muster did despite being more consistent. Agassi has played 3 finals at RG but he WON 1 of them, so his record at RG is better than Fed's (so far).
Lendl was very consistent at W (5 semis and 2 finals) but because he actually never won W, if I did a ranking on grass, I would have to put Stich and Ivanisevic ahead of him because they both have a W title when Lendl has none.

mental midget
04-07-2009, 04:37 AM
Im not denying Muster has his share of erratic and inconsistent play. But to say Fed is better than Muster on clay is a bit farfetched. Muster "on his game" could defeat anyone on clay. ANYONE. Including Nadal or at least give him a damn good match.



there is absolutely nothing muster could do that nadal doesn't do twice as good. nadal would destroy muster, and frankly, so would roger, playing halfway to his capabilities.

Andres
04-07-2009, 04:44 AM
This is not the right measure in this case, because Djokovic had to face Nadal in SFs in Hamburg and RG, while Federer got a free ride to the final in both cases. Even then points are pretty close.
Djokovic played much more competitive matches against Nadal than Federer.
Also Djokovic won Masters title in Rome.

Because of these factors Djokovic had better season.
2800 points < 3050 points

Yours are factors. These are FACTS. You cannot argue with facts. Fact is Roger amassed more clay points. Novak may have won Rome, but Roger reached the FO final.

3050 > 2800.

gj011
04-07-2009, 05:24 AM
2800 points < 3050 points

Yours are factors. These are FACTS. You cannot argue with facts. Fact is Roger amassed more clay points. Novak may have won Rome, but Roger reached the FO final.

3050 > 2800.

Yes but that fact alone does not tell the whole story. That is a fact too.

cucio
04-07-2009, 05:27 AM
I'd give the edge to Roger because he won against Djoko at MC.

All the respect to Novak for winning Rome fair and square, but that was a disgraceful free-for-all tournament, what with all the injured players (neither semifinal lasted more than a few games, disastrous.)

The fact that Nole gave Nadal a better match than Fed at RG is because of their particular match-ups, but I don't think that would automatically translate into Novak winning a hypothetical semifinal against Roger if the draw had pitted them against each other.

Anyway... who cares who is the second as long as he can't give a competitive match to the first? Sad as it is, the only interesting point for this clay season is whether Nadal has enough fuel in the tank to do a full sweep or not.

Andres
04-07-2009, 05:48 AM
Yes but that fact alone does not tell the whole store. That is a fact too.
No, that's not a fact. That's an opinion.

Tennis_Maestro
04-07-2009, 05:52 AM
Second best:
Monfils
Djokovic
Ferrer

Soon to be up there on Clay:
Murray
Simon

nadal
04-07-2009, 05:57 AM
Murray will probably take 2 or maybe Djokovic if he ever gets his crap together.



ya, you are right murray is number 2 cause of his amazing record on clay 11-14 you make me laugh!!!!!!!!

nadal
04-07-2009, 06:00 AM
I'd put about 5 players ahead of Davydenko on clay.

Ferrer's performance on clay is largely overrated. He didn't do anything last year and all four of his career clay court titles have come at itty bitty events.

Ferrer is overrated and murray is number 2 SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gj011
04-07-2009, 06:01 AM
No, that's not a fact. That's an opinion.

Ok you got me there. IMO it does not tell the whole story.

Did I really write "store" instead "story"? EDIT: fixed now.

Cesc Fabregas
04-07-2009, 06:14 AM
Second best:
Monfils
Djokovic
Ferrer

Soon to be up there on Clay:
Murray
Simon

Murray and Simon will never be up there they are not made for clay they suck on it.

Tennis_Maestro
04-07-2009, 06:16 AM
Murray and Simon will never be up there they are not made for clay they suck on it.

How predictable of you!

Youre just an ignorant poster, you only judge the present and never the potential.

Think about their games and levels of fitness and then move to thinking about what is required for being successful on clay.

Cesc Fabregas
04-07-2009, 06:18 AM
How predictable of you!

Youre just an ignorant poster, you only judge the present and never the potential.

Think about their games and levels of fitness and then move to thinking about what is required for being successful on clay.

A). Both don't move well on clay thats 90% of Murray's game
B). There ground strokes aren't effective on clay not heavy enough so they sit up nicely to be attacked.

Tennis_Maestro
04-07-2009, 06:25 AM
A). Both don't move well on clay thats 90% of Murray's game
B). There ground strokes aren't effective on clay not heavy enough so they sit up nicely to be attacked.

A) Murray has only come in to his own in the last year.
B) Simon is pretty much the same.
C) A and B are why you can't base their previous performances on clay on anything, even though Murray reached the 3rd or 4th round @ the French last season.

Love Game
04-07-2009, 07:16 AM
sorry wrong thread

coloskier
04-07-2009, 11:23 AM
6-1 6-3 6-0. You'll never see Djokovic get beat down like that. lol Djokovic was definitely the second best claycourter last year.

You are correct, you never see that kind of beatdown because Djoker will have quit in the 2nd set claiming "injury".

gj011
04-07-2009, 11:26 AM
You are correct, you never see that kind of beatdown because Djoker will have quit in the 2nd set claiming "injury".

You are wrong since in their SF match on the same FO, Nadal won first two sets 6-4 and 6-2 and was up a break in the third.
Djokovic still didn't roll over like Federer and got bagel in the third, but fought back and lost it in TB.

flying24
04-07-2009, 11:29 AM
Second best:
Monfils
Djokovic
Ferrer

Soon to be up there on Clay:
Murray
Simon

So now according to someone even Monfils and Ferrer are above Federer on clay. What idiocy. Ferrer has never beaten Federer on clay, or any other surface. Monfils couldnt even beat Federer at his worst at last years French Open.

deltox
04-07-2009, 12:32 PM
So now according to someone even Monfils and Ferrer are above Federer on clay. What idiocy. Ferrer has never beaten Federer on clay, or any other surface. Monfils couldnt even beat Federer at his worst at last years French Open.

this isnt last year my friend. Monfils is a monster this year. just be patient and watch

diegaa
04-07-2009, 12:43 PM
Djoko and fed are up there. Then, Robredo and Almagro.

P_Agony
04-07-2009, 01:44 PM
Federer is the only real answer. He just has the most consistent results on clay other than Nadal. When Djokovic makes one RG final, we can talk.

gj011
04-07-2009, 02:05 PM
Federer is the only real answer. He just has the most consistent results on clay other than Nadal. When Djokovic makes one RG final, we can talk.

Well, Djokovic had bad luck to be in Nadal's half in RG for the last three years. And when you have one dominant player of that surface like Nadal is, it is a big deal.
That is why he didn't make it to the RG final yet and it has nothing to do with Federer.

I just hope this year he will for once not end up in Nadal's half in RG.

grafselesfan
04-07-2009, 02:08 PM
I would give it to Djokovic last here and here is why. At the French Open and Hamburg one lost to Nadal in the semis and the other in the final. So basically lets call it a tie. We cant prove either way who would have won if they had played, and they basically reached the last or second last round and lost to the same player.

Federer did a bit better than Djokovic at Monte Carlo (finals vs semis). However Djokovic did much better than Federer in Rome (champion vs quarters). Thus the bigger difference between their Rome result vs their Monte Carlo result, and calling the French Open and Hamburg a tie, gives it to Djokovic.

miyagi
04-07-2009, 02:13 PM
Djoko played better than Federer last year.

He played a much better match at Hamburg and won Rome.

Fed just won Estoril which doesnt even count and only got to F.O final as he didnt have to face Rafa in the semi's.

I dont think Djoko can reproduce his performances this year and Fed should resume his #2 spot providing he doesnt run into Murray too often.

fastdunn
04-07-2009, 02:22 PM
yeah the question is whether we will have some players could challenge Federer on clay this year.

both of organic surfaces(clay and grass) have been utterly dominated by the two players, Nadal and Federer. it's really hard to think one.

If we have players like Corea still active, Federer might be vulnerable to those type of players, I think.

I know Del Potro has been strong on hard courts but hasn't he grown up on clay ???

The-Champ
04-07-2009, 06:00 PM
Not 96 Muster. No way in hell. I dont think you guys realize how good Muster really was.



You're not the only one in this forum who had seen muster play. Yes, he was good, but the federer of 2006-2007 definitely will give a great match, even beating him.

The-Champ
04-07-2009, 06:10 PM
Yeah I have. He is a poor mans Nadal and can be taken to even on clay. If Michael Stich could do it, Federer definitely could've.


That's because Muster was never good at passing shots. Serve and volleyers owned him everywhere. That's where I think federer would beat him if he could combine s&v with his baseline game. That's the biggest difference between Nadal and Muster. Nadal would destroy a s&v on dirt, his passing shots are just too good.

The-Champ
04-07-2009, 06:16 PM
Im not denying Muster has his share of erratic and inconsistent play. But to say Fed is better than Muster on clay is a bit farfetched. Muster "on his game" could defeat anyone on clay. ANYONE. Including Nadal or at least give him a damn good match.

I know you are Nadal fan and still dont want to admit that this era has brought forth 1-2 percent talented clay court players but you dont have to be so such a Nadal biased homer. Just because Nadal is dominating this patheic clay field with some obscene winning clay court record doesnt mean he could duplicate this success in a era with actually TALENTED dirtballers. Not 1-2 talented dirtballers and a field of mediocrity such as Ferrer, Monfils, etc. Muster a "weaker version" of Nadal? Gimme a break. Biased Nadal loving at it's finest. Thinking Nadal's domination over this particular clay court field is so impressive.

Lets bring up Nadal French Opens draws these past 4 years and see how pathetic they have truly been. I already brough up Fed's



But you're glorifying those 90's players (courier, bruguera, muster) because your boy SAMPRAS manage to beat them. And because Sampras had beaten them, Sampras would probably win 5 french opens in row during fed/Rafa era.... Am I right? or Am I right?

Nadal_Freak
04-07-2009, 06:19 PM
90's players are overrated. They only win because there was no depth in mens tennis outside them.

flying24
04-07-2009, 06:24 PM
But you're glorifying those 90's players (courier, bruguera, muster) because your boy SAMPRAS manage to beat them. And because Sampras had beaten them, Sampras would probably win 5 french opens in row during fed/Rafa era.... Am I right? or Am I right?

Sampras did not even beat any of them on clay when they were at their best or in their primes though. Muster in 1991 when he wasnt a top 50 player, Bruguera in 1996 when he was injured and only .500 on clay for the year, Courier in 1996 when he was about to fall out of the top 20 forever and in his last ever slam quarterfinal. The so called clowns that Federer played on his way to French finals like Davydenko, Gonzales, Monfils in 2008, Nalbandian, etc...would have all beaten those players those years they were so far off their prime levels as well, probably in less sets than it took Sampras to do it.

Yes GameSampras probably thinks Sampras would win 5 straight French Opens today. He is plenty delusional enough to think so.

The-Champ
04-07-2009, 06:27 PM
Sampras did not even beat any of them on clay when they were at their best or in their primes though. Muster in 1991 when he wasnt a top 50 player, Bruguera in 1996 when he was injured and only .500 on clay for the year, Courier in 1996 when he was about to fall out of the top 20 forever and in his last ever slam quarterfinal. The so called clowns that Federer played on his way to French finals like Davydenko, Gonzales, Monfils in 2008, Nalbandian, etc...would have all beaten those players those years they were so far off their prime levels as well, probably in less sets than it took Sampras to do it.

Yes GameSampras probably thinks Sampras would win 5 straight French Opens today. He is plenty delusional enough to think so.


Yes, but GameSampras will find to way to twist reality and make it look like Sampras beat them at their prime.

Pirao
04-08-2009, 02:34 AM
It's Federer, you can't argue with 3 consecutive FO finals.

Andres
04-08-2009, 05:20 AM
Djoko played better than Federer last year.

He played a much better match at Hamburg and won Rome.

Fed just won Estoril which doesnt even count and only got to F.O final as he didnt have to face Rafa in the semi's.
I'm amused how you decided to ignore the fact that Federer was runner-up in MonteCarlo and Hamburg.

So, let's put it this way:

Clay Season:

Federer:
Estoril: Champion (250 pts)
Monte Carlo: F (700 pts)
Rome: QF (250 pts)
Hamburg: F (700 pts)
Roland Garros: F (1400 pts)

Total: 3300 clay points.

Djokovic:
Monte Carlo: SF (450 pts)
Rome: Champion (1000 pts)
Hamburg: SF (450 pts)
French Open: SF (900 pts)

Total: 2800 clay pts

Now, if we take Estoril out the equation, Roger still leads 3050 to 2800. Doesn't matter how you want to see it, Roger had a more successful and better clay season. Two MS runner ups and a GS runner up beats two MC SF, a MC title and a GS SF every time.

Gorecki
04-08-2009, 05:33 AM
90's players are overrated. They only win because there was no depth in mens tennis outside them.

yes. for once we agree... nowadays the field is so much deeper... just look at it:

The current Number one (Rafael Nadal) was aced 7 (seven) times by a 36 year old man with ciatica who was known for is weak serve!

that is how deep todays tennis is!

:twisted:

gj011
04-08-2009, 06:46 AM
I'm amused how you decided to ignore the fact that Federer was runner-up in MonteCarlo and Hamburg.

So, let's put it this way:

Clay Season:

Federer:
Estoril: Champion (250 pts)
Monte Carlo: F (700 pts)
Rome: QF (250 pts)
Hamburg: F (700 pts)
Roland Garros: F (1400 pts)

Total: 3300 clay points.

Djokovic:
Monte Carlo: SF (450 pts)
Rome: Champion (1000 pts)
Hamburg: SF (450 pts)
French Open: SF (900 pts)

Total: 2800 clay pts

Now, if we take Estoril out the equation, Roger still leads 3050 to 2800. Doesn't matter how you want to see it, Roger had a more successful and better clay season. Two MS runner ups and a GS runner up beats two MC SF, a MC title and a GS SF every time.

I told you already this does not tell the whole story.
Also I think you misunderstood what myagi was saying. "Only" there means "only reason" why he was in the RG final and Djokovic was not. Not that is was "only" final he played.

julesb
04-08-2009, 06:59 AM
Anyone could speculate on reasons and make excuses if they want. Djokovic has never beaten Federer on clay so he deserves no benefit of doubt that he would have beaten Federer on clay had they played. If one wants to play that game they could say Djokovic is lucky he didnt play Ferrer at either event who he still has never beaten on clay and couldnt even take a set off in their last 2 meetings on clay. The facts are what they are, as Andreas pointed out Djokovic collected fewer points in the same events on clay as Federer, had a worse result in 3 of the 4, and lost their only meeting. Thus 2008 Federer > Djokovic on clay. Not really hard to understand.

Andres
04-08-2009, 07:12 AM
I told you already this does not tell the whole story.
Also I think you misunderstood what myagi was saying. "Only" there means "only reason" why he was in the RG final and Djokovic was not. Not that is was "only" final he played.
Oh you're right. Didn't get that last part. My reading skills have been lacking lately.

But I don't think it was the only reason. He won the right of facing Nadal in the finals by being #1 for that long. And, by the way, I don't think Djokovic would have beaten Federer in the SF if they were on the same side of the draw, not in MC, Hamburg nor Roland Garros... and this comes from a guy who absolutely despises Federer.

P_Agony
04-08-2009, 07:39 AM
Federer has beaten Djokovic on clay last year.

*Waits for any sickness, injury, or "I forgot to feed my dog" excuses*.

Nadal_Freak
04-08-2009, 07:42 AM
Federer has beaten Djokovic on clay last year.

*Waits for any sickness, injury, or "I forgot to feed my dog" excuses*.
That is not RG btw. I'm expecting Djokovic to beat Federer at RG if he is on his side of the draw. Roger admits that Monte Carlo and Hamburg suit him more due to the lower bounces compared to Roland Garros.

Andres
04-08-2009, 07:46 AM
That is not RG btw. I'm expecting Djokovic to beat Federer at RG if he is on his side of the draw. Roger admits that Monte Carlo and Hamburg suit him more due to the lower bounces compared to Roland Garros.
I don't see Monte Carlo being much different from Roland Garros in terms of how the clay plays or the weather conditions. I can't see Djokovic beating Federer in a best of five on clay.

Nadal_Freak
04-08-2009, 07:50 AM
I don't see Monte Carlo being much different from Roland Garros in terms of how the clay plays or the weather conditions. I can't see Djokovic beating Federer in a best of five on clay.
I see a difference. Nadal is fresher for Monte Carlo but the court is definitely slower and lower bouncing. Federer said it right after his match against Nadal at RG. Monte Carlo and Hamburg are different to each other. I think Hamburg is even more low bouncing and can be faster if the conditions are warmer and dryer.

P_Agony
04-08-2009, 07:52 AM
That is not RG btw. I'm expecting Djokovic to beat Federer at RG if he is on his side of the draw. Roger admits that Monte Carlo and Hamburg suit him more due to the lower bounces compared to Roland Garros.

Roland Garros is a slam. It is also on clay, which means the points last a lot longer and there are many rallies. Even if Djokovic plays well, he wouldn't be able to stay with Federer due to his fitness. Plus, Fed is a better clay player, way more experienced too. I'm not saying Fed will beat him in easy straight sets, but I do think he'll get the W. In a 3-set match it's easy to suprise Fed - you win one set, and in the 3rd it's the usual Federer choke. In a 5-setter, it's much harder, as Fed has enough time to pick up his level (as seen against Andreev, Berdych, Tipsy) and win the match. There is a reason why there is such a large gap between his slam results and his MS results, you know.

Nadal_Freak
04-08-2009, 08:01 AM
Roland Garros is a slam. It is also on clay, which means the points last a lot longer and there are many rallies. Even if Djokovic plays well, he wouldn't be able to stay with Federer due to his fitness. Plus, Fed is a better clay player, way more experienced too. I'm not saying Fed will beat him in easy straight sets, but I do think he'll get the W. In a 3-set match it's easy to suprise Fed - you win one set, and in the 3rd it's the usual Federer choke. In a 5-setter, it's much harder, as Fed has enough time to pick up his level (as seen against Andreev, Berdych, Tipsy) and win the match. There is a reason why there is such a large gap between his slam results and his MS results, you know.
Yes Fed's fitness has looked really good lately. :rolleyes: Falling apart in the 5th set against a tired Nadal, falling apart twice against Murray in the 3rd set, and falling apart the last 2 sets against Djokovic in Miami where conditions are rough. Djokovic was able to hang in a long time against Nadal in Hamburg and Roland Garros. Playing against Fed would be a relief to not get into these exhausting points and the higher bounces suit Djokovic more as he is better suited against high balls.

NamRanger
04-08-2009, 08:03 AM
Yes Fed's fitness has looked really good lately. :rolleyes: Falling apart in the 5th set against a tired Nadal, falling apart twice against Murray in the 3rd set, and falling apart the last 2 sets against Djokovic in Miami where conditions are rough. Djokovic was able to hang in a long time against Nadal in Hamburg and Roland Garros. Playing against Fed would be a relief to not get into these exhausting points and the higher bounces suit Djokovic more as he is better suited against high balls.



I come back and I see you're still at it. Well, I guess somethings never change; such as your inability to properly come up with a logical argument.

Cyan
04-08-2009, 08:03 AM
Nole?

10 char

Nadal_Freak
04-08-2009, 08:07 AM
I come back and I see you're still at it. Well, I guess somethings never change; such as your inability to properly come up with a logical argument.
Anything you don't agree with equals stupidity. And welcome back from your vacation or whatever.

P_Agony
04-08-2009, 08:07 AM
Yes Fed's fitness has looked really good lately. :rolleyes: Falling apart in the 5th set against a tired Nadal, falling apart twice against Murray in the 3rd set, and falling apart the last 2 sets against Djokovic in Miami where conditions are rough. Djokovic was able to hang in a long time against Nadal in Hamburg and Roland Garros. Playing against Fed would be a relief to not get into these exhausting points and the higher bounces suit Djokovic more as he is better suited against high balls.

Fed's losses against these guys had nothing to do with fitness. In the AO it was a pure mental breakdown, and it was so obvious anyone who didn't see it is in denial. Same goes for the other matchs. At the Miami match, Djokovic looked like he was about to faint at any point, and held it together because he saw Federer was beating himself, and there is no need for him to try very hard. Federer's fitness is fine. I would dare say he's every bit as fit as Nadal.

NamRanger
04-08-2009, 08:09 AM
Anything you don't agree with equals stupidity. And welcome back from your vacation or whatever.



You're saying the guy who got tortured by Roddick at the Australian Open is going to beat Federer, who has been the 2nd best clay court player since 2006, on the most physically demanding surface in a best of 5? Right.

Nadal_Freak
04-08-2009, 08:09 AM
Fed's losses against these guys had nothing to do with fitness. In the AO it was a pure mental breakdown, and it was so obvious anyone who didn't see it is in denial. Same goes for the other matchs. At the Miami match, Djokovic looked like he was about to faint at any point, and held it together because he saw Federer was beating himself, and there is no need for him to try very hard. Federer's fitness is fine. I would dare say he's every bit as fit as Nadal.
The fact is Federer's game goes really off if he doesn't feel 100%. He does seem to be sweating a lot more than he used to. Federer used to be very fit. It's just the last year he has gotten out of shape and his movement shows it. Not as crisp as he needs to be.

NamRanger
04-08-2009, 08:10 AM
The fact is Federer's game goes really off if he doesn't feel 100%. He does seem to be sweating a lot more than he used to. Federer used to be very fit. It's just the last year he has gotten out of shape and his movement shows it. Not as crisp as he needs to be.


It's called aging. Something you obviously do not do.

Nadal_Freak
04-08-2009, 08:12 AM
You're saying the guy who got tortured by Roddick at the Australian Open is going to beat Federer, who has been the 2nd best clay court player since 2006, on the most physically demanding surface in a best of 5? Right.
Ok Djokovic doesn't like heat. It usually isn't that hot at Roland Garros or most of the clay season though. In the right conditions, Djokovic doesn't mind long points. He gave Nadal his toughest set in the last set of the match at Roland Garros last year.

csr_88
04-08-2009, 08:13 AM
The fact is Federer's game goes really off if he doesn't feel 100%. He does seem to be sweating a lot more than he used to. Federer used to be very fit. It's just the last year he has gotten out of shape and his movement shows it. Not as crisp as he needs to be.

tbh i really do believe that in order for Federer to play at his highest level conditions need to be near perfect for him.

I like federer a lot, he's my favorite but he needs to learn how to win dirty, and lift himself up when he gets down during matches. this past weekend was a great example

thejoe
04-08-2009, 08:15 AM
Ok Djokovic doesn't like heat. It usually isn't that hot at Roland Garros or most of the clay season though. In the right conditions, Djokovic doesn't mind long points. He gave Nadal his toughest set in the last set of the match at Roland Garros last year.

It is hot. Very hot.

NamRanger
04-08-2009, 08:15 AM
Ok Djokovic doesn't like heat. It usually isn't that hot at Roland Garros or most of the clay season though. In the right conditions, Djokovic doesn't mind long points. He gave Nadal his toughest set in the last set of the match at Roland Garros last year.



Really? Are you serious? Djokovic was about to die at Indian Wells against Roddick, and it was only like 80 degrees at the most. Miami is actually fairly cool, but Djokovic couldn't deal with the humidity (and it DOES get humid in Paris).



Simply put, you are trying to say the guy in the top 10 with probably the worst stamina is going to beat an excellent claycourt player, on the most physically demanding surface. That, is just preposterous.

CocaCola
04-08-2009, 08:15 AM
Djokovic is the 2nd best on clay, but I also hope Tsonga can do well this year...

Fedace
04-08-2009, 08:18 AM
are you kidding ??? Juan DelPotro for sure.

Nadal_Freak
04-08-2009, 08:20 AM
It is hot. Very hot.
It was in the 60's most of last years slam. I guess Roland Garros is very unpredictable with their conditions. Going from 60's-90's.

csr_88
04-08-2009, 08:20 AM
It was in the 60's most of last years slam. I guess Roland Garros is very unpredictable with their conditions. Going from 60's-90's.

you're in houston also!?

Nadal_Freak
04-08-2009, 08:23 AM
you're in houston also!?
Yeah I live in Houston. Southeast Houston.

Gizo
04-08-2009, 08:28 AM
Of course tennis is a results business so I would have to say that Federer is no. 2 on clay right now.
However I think that Davydenko and Ferrer are actually more talented on clay than than Federer and Djokovic, but unfortunately they have underachieved on the surface for one reason or another. Davydenko is mentally weak, as his SF defeat to Federer at RG in 2007 proved (he was the better player for most of that match but contrived to throw away all 3 sets). Ferrer on the other hand has a habit of getting his tactics wrong, as his defeats to Verdasco and Monfils at RG over the past 2 years have shown. It's a huge shame. They are both clay court underachievers, who really should be Nadal's closest competitors on the surface in my opinion.
Federer and Djokovic, like the majority of players nowadays, pretty much play hard court tennis on clay, and are boring to watch on the red dirt. But then again the way they play has been effective against most players not named Nadal on the surface over the past few years, though in Djokovic's case Ferrer has his number on clay.

csr_88
04-08-2009, 08:39 AM
Yeah I live in Houston. Southeast Houston.

that's cool. you still play a lot?

Nadal_Freak
04-08-2009, 08:44 AM
that's cool. you still play a lot?
Wish I could. I used to play 4.0's. I damage my shoulder by swinging free weights like tennis strokes. Too bad no one told me that is bad before I did it. :mad:

gj011
04-08-2009, 09:49 AM
Federer has beaten Djokovic on clay last year.

*Waits for any sickness, injury, or "I forgot to feed my dog" excuses*.

Here is it, since it is the truth.

Djokovic was sick in MC last year. He had a fever and a strap throat. He was on antibiotics after MC.

veroniquem
04-08-2009, 09:53 AM
It is hot. Very hot.
It's never hot at RG, Paris is cool in the spring. Monte-Carlo in April is heaven, perfect temperatures, just pleasantly warm, absolutely ideal.

veroniquem
04-08-2009, 09:57 AM
Here is it, since it is the truth.

Djokovic was sick in MC last year. He had a fever and a strap throat. He was on antibiotics after MC.
Federer fans discount Djoko's AO 2008 victory because Fed was "unhealthy" but they still want Monte-Carlo 2008 to be a 100% legit victory. They can't have it both ways IMO.

tahiti
04-08-2009, 10:00 AM
There is no one in my mind that really stands out to take such a title as "the 2nd best player on clay." There might be good clay courters but whether they're that good that they stand out only on clay...nope... I don't see anyone.

Cyan
04-08-2009, 10:28 AM
Nole had a throat infection in MC 2008. His 2008 on clay vs Nadal was more impressive than Fed vs Rafa on clay.....

P_Agony
04-08-2009, 12:52 PM
Here is it, since it is the truth.

Djokovic was sick in MC last year. He had a fever and a strap throat. He was on antibiotics after MC.

If you're feel sick and feel you may not be able to finish the match, don't bother showing up. I don't recall Federer retiring when he was sick and lost in straight sets do Djokovic in AO 2008, and that match was best of five. Djokovic could stay for 2-3 more games and let the match be over cleanly. Not the way of Djokovic though.

GameSampras
04-08-2009, 01:08 PM
Yes, but GameSampras will find to way to twist reality and make it look like Sampras beat them at their prime.

Im not bringing Sampras into this argument at all since its not about Pete. Im just calling a spade a spade. THe clay court field lacks in serious depth today as it did in the 90s. There is a FACT. Not really an opinion. Just watch most today's clay field outside of Nadal than watch the 90s and tell me what field was tougher.

If you say today's clay court field is on par with the 90s, there is something wrong. Just because Im stating the glaring truth doesnt mean to be a knock at Nadal, Fed, or anyone. Its just the way it is

flying24
04-08-2009, 01:10 PM
Im not bringing Sampras into this argument at all since its not about Pete.

Please. We have all figured out your shtick by now. No argument you try to get into isnt indirectly related to your beloved Pete in some way, shape, or form.

GameSampras
04-08-2009, 01:15 PM
Please. We have all figured out your shtick by now. No argument you try to get into isnt indirectly related to your beloved Pete in some way, shape, or form.

Thats ridiculous. Theres been many threads and post when I talk about Pete. Lets see Ive posted about WTA players, posted about Djoker, Murray, Del Potro, Blake. Is there some hidden reference when I talk about these guys, Im secrectly just trying to glorify Pete? NO

Know what youre talking about, or at least read all my posts before you spew your trash. Dont read the ones you CHOOSE to read.

FEDERER>buttpicker.
04-08-2009, 08:11 PM
the second best clay courter is probably buttpicker Nadal. best is FEderer by far.