PDA

View Full Version : How would you rank these Clay Courters from Best to Worst? -Federer......Rosewall


GasquetGOAT
04-06-2010, 10:05 AM
Roger Federer
Gaston Gaudio
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Albert Costa
Andre Agassi
Carlos Moya
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Thomas Muster
Andres Gomez
Michael Chang
Yannick Noah
Guillermo Vilas
Adriano Panatta
Ilie Nastase
Andres Gimeno

GasquetGOAT
04-06-2010, 10:08 PM
I guess the obvious queston is, is there any reason(s) to rank anyone in the list ahead of Federer? Federer should be way ahead of that pack in terms of clay achievements.

World Beater
04-06-2010, 10:50 PM
i dont know how ppl can compare gimeno and rosewall to federer. Just too difficult.

The nostalgia clowns favorite way to compare is to take some historical account of a player and place it on a higher pedestal than actual live evidence of current or recent players.

Favoring current players while ironically ignorant in some sense is certainly more logical than the converse.

Usually the level in sports increases over time and i can see how players of the future will be more advanced and "better".

But to glorify and immortalize the past based on historical accounts and little live evidence is just clearly comical.

The benefit of the doubt should be given to the case where more evidence and better evidence is provided.

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 01:13 AM
i dont know how ppl can compare gimeno and rosewall to federer. Just too difficult.

The nostalgia clowns favorite way to compare is to take some historical account of a player and place it on a higher pedestal than actual live evidence of current or recent players.

Favoring current players while ironically ignorant in some sense is certainly more logical than the converse.

Usually the level in sports increases over time and i can see how players of the future will be more advanced and "better".

But to glorify and immortalize the past based on historical accounts and little live evidence is just clearly comical.

The benefit of the doubt should be given to the case where more evidence and better evidence is provided.

I agree. The typical Laver vs Federer argument. Size of talent pool in 1960s vs 2010s? World population participating in sport, 1960s vs 2010s?

fed_rulz
04-07-2010, 01:44 AM
I guess the obvious queston is, is there any reason(s) to rank anyone in the list ahead of Federer? Federer should be way ahead of that pack in terms of clay achievements.

IMO, No. But don't be surprised to find some posters place at least 8/10 on that list ahead of federer when this thread is done

davey25
04-07-2010, 01:59 AM
I guess the obvious queston is, is there any reason(s) to rank anyone in the list ahead of Federer? Federer should be way ahead of that pack in terms of clay achievements.

LOL based on what? Winning only 1 Roland Garros, 0 Rome titles, and 0 Monte Carlo titles. Sorry I guess it is all those Hamburg and Estoril victories, the stuff clay court legends are made of.

sh@de
04-07-2010, 02:59 AM
LOL based on what? Winning only 1 Roland Garros, 0 Rome titles, and 0 Monte Carlo titles. Sorry I guess it is all those Hamburg and Estoril victories, the stuff clay court legends are made of.

Don't forget the one Madrid victory and the tonne of clay court finals he made... he was only stopped from getting a truckload of FO's because the greatest clay courter of all time was around.

fed_rulz
04-07-2010, 03:06 AM
LOL based on what? Winning only 1 Roland Garros, 0 Rome titles, and 0 Monte Carlo titles. Sorry I guess it is all those Hamburg and Estoril victories, the stuff clay court legends are made of.

GameSampras, we get it - The titles that Fed hasn't won are more important than the ones that he actually has won. The stuff clay court legends are made of (according to you) are precisely the titles (MC, Rome) that Fed hasn't won.

Gorecki
04-07-2010, 03:27 AM
I guess the obvious queston is, is there any reason(s) to rank anyone in the list ahead of Federer? Federer should be way ahead of that pack in terms of clay achievements.

the Federer that gets schooled in clay by a criplled hip GUGA?... is that one that is so far ahead of the pack?

dropshot winner
04-07-2010, 03:46 AM
the Federer that gets schooled in clay by a criplled hip GUGA?... is that one that is so far ahead of the pack?
Guga was far from crippled. He had a lot of pain which only got worse over the next days/weeks, but that day he was on like in his good days.

Nalbandian's hip was in similiar condition when he outplayed peak-Nadal in Indian Wells last year.

As painful as it is, and as much as it can end a career, it's still possible to play brilliant matches on some days.

Guga in one of his best ever years (2001) very nearly lost to Russel (who?) in RG. On MP he was lucky that one of his not so cleanly hit forehands landed on the line and not a inch further.

It says a lot about Federer as a player that one of his worst ever losses since he reached the top was against a 3-time Roland Garros champion in Roland Garros.

aphex
04-07-2010, 03:48 AM
the Federer that gets schooled in clay by a criplled hip GUGA?... is that one that is so far ahead of the pack?

you mean the Guga who got schooled by Medvedev and 18-year-old Safin during his prime at the FO? lol

valiant
04-07-2010, 03:54 AM
Tennis is about match ups. Some might have better resumes but lose to even a complete NOBODY.

Augustus
04-07-2010, 04:03 AM
Tennis is about match ups. Some might have better resumes but lose to even a complete NOBODY.

All great players have losses to players they're supposed to beat (call them nobodies if you want), it doesn't really damage their legacy. Sampras lost to Bastl on grass, Federer lost to Ancic, Nadal lost to Soderling at RG, and the list goes on. No need to bring this up every time in order to diminish their achievements.

aphex
04-07-2010, 04:09 AM
btw, rosewall should not be on this list:

he's in the first tier along with borg and nadal

all the other players you have there are 2nd or 3rd tier.

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 04:12 AM
ah... so you both agree with me that these comparisons GasquetGoat makes all the time are dumb as Feces?

No, dropshot winner actual said, "It says a lot about Federer as a player that one of his worst ever losses since he reached the top was against a 3-time Roland Garros champion in Roland Garros".

Don't see how anyone is agreeing with your dumb as Feces comparison between Fed and Guga, who is by the way not the player in discussion here. Read the first post again, need help reading comprehension?

valiant
04-07-2010, 04:31 AM
All great players have losses to players they're supposed to beat (call them nobodies if you want), it doesn't really damage their legacy. Sampras lost to Bastl on grass, Federer lost to Ancic, Nadal lost to Soderling at RG, and the list goes on. No need to bring this up every time in order to diminish their achievements.

Thats what I meant.

Gorecki
04-07-2010, 04:31 AM
No, dropshot winner actual said, "It says a lot about Federer as a player that one of his worst ever losses since he reached the top was against a 3-time Roland Garros champion in Roland Garros".

Don't see how anyone is agreeing with your dumb as Feces comparison between Fed and Guga, who is by the way not the player in discussion here. Read the first post again, need help reading comprehension?

actually no, i dont need. i find you Leaving GUGA out of the question quite enlightening about how much you yourself believe Fed is a Clay Great...

thanks for making my point once more...


ps: i still enjoy your threads. very comical most of them!

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 04:32 AM
btw, rosewall should not be on this list:

he's in the first tier along with borg and nadal

all the other players you have there are 2nd or 3rd tier.

I agree Rosewall shouldn't be in here, he just happened to be the first official "Open Era" French Open winner. But yes it further complicates things, I will removed him from the list.

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 04:36 AM
actually no, i dont need. i find you Leaving GUGA out of the question quite enlightening about how much you yourself believe Fed is a Clay Great...

thanks for making my point once more...


ps: i still enjoy your threads. very comical most of them!

by repeating "thanks for making my point once more.." does not make your point any clearer to other posters. lol what IS your point in this thread again?

Oh by the way, in case you didn't get it the first time - we are NOT discussing GUGA in this thread. LOOK at post number 1.;)

Gen
04-07-2010, 04:49 AM
So kind of you to omit 3 best clay courters from your list:

Borg (6 clay slams + 9 clay master-equivalents)
Nadal (4 clay slams + 10 clay masters + the longest win streak on one surface in the history of tennis - 81 matches)
Kuerten (3 clay slams + ...)

Their title collection is so terribly inferior to Feddy's with his meagre 1 slam (won when Rafa was out of competition) and his great clay rivalry with Nadal 9:2 (guess who leads).

Augustus
04-07-2010, 04:52 AM
So kind of you to omit 3 best clay courters from your list:

Borg (6 clay slams + 9 clay master-equivalents)
Nadal (4 clay slams + 10 clay masters + the longest win streak on one surface in the history of tennis - 81 matches)
Kuerten (3 clay slams + ...)

Their title collection is so terribly inferior to Feddy's with his meagre 1 slam (won when Rafa was out of competition) and his great clay rivalry with Nadal 9:2 (guess who leads).

That's exactly the reason why he excluded them, he wanted to rank the 'second-tier' clay-court greats.

dropshot winner
04-07-2010, 04:55 AM
ah... so you both agree with me that these comparisons GasquetGoat makes all the time are dumb as Feces?

I don't know what kind of comparisions he has made, I have lost count of all the dumb posts on TT anyway.

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 04:57 AM
So kind of you to omit 3 best clay courters from your list:

Borg (6 clay slams + 9 clay master-equivalents)
Nadal (4 clay slams + 10 clay masters + the longest win streak on one surface in the history of tennis - 81 matches)
Kuerten (3 clay slams + ...)

Their title collection is so terribly inferior to Feddy's with his meagre 1 slam (won when Rafa was out of competition) and his great clay rivalry with Nadal 9:2 (guess who leads).

You don't think maybe I meant to omit these 3 guys from the discussion?

Why stop there, why not throw in Jim Courier, Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander as well?

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 05:01 AM
I don't know what kind of comparisions he has made, I have lost count of all the dumb posts on TT anyway.

Is it really so hard? Please see below.

That's exactly the reason why he excluded them, he wanted to rank the 'second-tier' clay-court greats.

Thank you. Glad to see one good post after all the dumb posts in this thread.

davey25
04-07-2010, 05:07 AM
Don't forget the one Madrid victory and the tonne of clay court finals he made... he was only stopped from getting a truckload of FO's because the greatest clay courter of all time was around.

Yes I have heard that excuse for the 1000th time only already. If one says "if Nadal wasnt there" I could say what if the overall clay court field wasnt such a joke during much of Federer's success there.

There are many clay courters on that list who have achieved more than 1 French Open title and 1 Madrid title.

davey25
04-07-2010, 05:08 AM
GameSampras, we get it - The titles that Fed hasn't won are more important than the ones that he actually has won. The stuff clay court legends are made of (according to you) are precisely the titles (MC, Rome) that Fed hasn't won.

The most prestigious and important clay court event is the French Open, followed by Rome and Monte Carlo. What is so shocking about that news? That is the way it has been for decades.

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 05:10 AM
That's exactly the reason why he excluded them, he wanted to rank the 'second-tier' clay-court greats.

Seriously, what's wrong with all these not-so-b****t posters jumping to the conclusion that this is another Fedlovefest thread as soon as they see "Federer" in the title?!:|

Is it so hard to rank the 'second-tier' clay-court greats?

Gen
04-07-2010, 05:11 AM
You don't think maybe I meant to omit these 3 guys from the discussion?

Why stop there, why not throw in Jim Courier, Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander as well?

What's your comparison basis then? To omit every clay courter better than Fed and declare him a clay god? What are you trying to discuss?

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 05:12 AM
There are many clay courters on that list who have achieved more than 1 French Open title and 1 Madrid title.

Really? is that all Federer has done on clay? oh my...

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 05:13 AM
What's your comparison basis then? To omit every clay courter better than Fed and declare him a clay god? What are you trying to discuss?

*facepalm*.........


See post number 28.

davey25
04-07-2010, 05:13 AM
Really? is that all Federer has done on clay? oh my...

those are the biggest things he has achieved on clay yes. So his biggest claim to greatness on clay is winning Hamburg and Estoril alot.

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 05:14 AM
those are the biggest things he has achieved on clay yes. So his biggest claim to greatness on clay is winning Hamburg and Estoril alot.

What makes you think Madrid is a better achievement than Hamburg? Enlighten me.

Gen
04-07-2010, 05:14 AM
You should have omitted Vilas from this list of one-clay-slam wonders. He won 2 clay slams (USO was played on clay in 1977).

dropshot winner
04-07-2010, 05:17 AM
What's your comparison basis then? To omit every clay courter better than Fed and declare him a clay god? What are you trying to discuss?

How dare he not bow to Nadal's greatness in this thread!!

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 05:18 AM
You should have omitted Vilas from this list of one-clay-slam wonders. He won 2 clay slams (USO was played on clay in 1977).

That's a good point. And as he also has 3 runner-ups at the French Open which would put him one more clay slam ahead of Federer.

Li Ching Yuen
04-07-2010, 05:20 AM
Comparing current players with ones that played over 40 years ago is very intelligent and ground-breaking.

borg number one
04-07-2010, 05:22 AM
Ranking these guys as far as clay court prowess is very tough. They are all one-time French Open Champions. Keep in mind that if we give Federer "extra credit" for losing to an all-time great such as Nadal, a guy like Vilas should get some benefit for having to face Borg during Borg's reign. Vilas dropped 2 finals at the FO to Borg and 1 more to Wilander in 1982 (3 FO finals, 1 FO title).

Now, Agassi, also has 2 FO finals he lost, but he lost to Gomez and Courier (also really good clay courters, but not at Nadal's level).

Since all these guys have 1 FO title, I've listed total number of total clay court titles as a preliminary "tiebreaker". Looking at the list of players, ranked by total number of clay court titles, I'd put Federer at about 5 on the list, after giving him some extra credit since he plays in Nadal's era. He is still pretty far behind a few of the other guys in terms of total clay court titles.

These guys at the top should get credit for winning many clay court titles, besides just the 1 FO title. So, I wouldn't rank them behind Federer just because they played in "earlier years". Will a 1 time FO champion in say 10 years NECESSARILY be better than Federer because of "natural evolution" of the Sport? I wouldn't think so. On a given day, Federer is quite dangerous on clay, but his results are not better than many great clay courters.

It depends on what you want to emphasize. Just like any comparison between players of different eras, this is a subjective and objective analysis. If a Federer fan wants to place Federer at the top of the list, he/she needs to give some reason as to why.

Just because he is a "current" player is not enough in my opinion. Will players 10 years from now "automatically" be better than the guys at the top today? Not necessarily, in my opinion, but there will likely be changes to how the Game is being played at the highest level, driven by changing techniques, playing style, technology, and the sheer competition among the top guys.

Here's my list with just these players involved. Let's remember that guys like Courier and Bruguera have 2 FO titles and are not on this list at all.

1. Guillermo Vilas - 46
2. Thomas Muster - 40
3. Ilie Nastase - 28
4. Carlos Moya - 16
5. Roger Federer - 9
6. Andres Gomez - 16
7. Albert Costa - 13
8. Yannick Noah - 12
9. Juan Carlos Ferrero - 11
10. Adriano Panatta - 8
11. Gaston Gaudio - 8
12. Andre Agassi - 7
13. Michael Chang - 5
14. Yevgeny Kafelnikov - 4
15. Andres Gimeno - 3

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 05:24 AM
Comparing current players with ones that played over 40 years ago is very intelligent and ground-breaking.

Well if I dont know include all the "past greats" in the list it would insult many posters here on TTW, I'm not taking that risk.

Rhino
04-07-2010, 05:29 AM
Well if Nadal is supposed to be the greatest clay courter of all time, and Federer is the only man to win the French Open with Nadal in the draw, then I guess Federer must be the best on that list.

That's my logic and I'm sticking to it.

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 05:29 AM
Ranking these guys as far as clay court prowess is very tough. They are all one-time French Open Champions. Keep in mind that if we give Federer "extra credit" for losing to an all-time great such as Nadal, a guy like Vilas should get some benefit for having to face Borg during Borg's reign. Vilas dropped 2 finals at the FO to Borg and 1 more to Wilander in 1982 (3 FO finals, 1 FO title).

Now, Agassi, also has 2 FO finals he lost, but he lost to Gomez and Courier (also really good clay courters, but not at Nadal's level).

Since all these guys have 1 FO title, I've listed total number of total clay court titles as a preliminary "tiebreaker". Looking at the list of players, ranked by total number of clay court titles, I'd put Federer at about 5 on the list, after giving him some extra credit since he plays in Nadal's era, but he is still pretty far behind a few of the other guys in terms of total clay court titles.

These guys at the top should get credit for winning many clay court titles, besides just the 1 FO title. So, I wouldn't rank them behind Federer just because they played in "earlier years". Will a 1 time FO champion in say 10 years NECESSARILY be better than Federer because of "natural evolution" of the Sport? I wouldn't think so. On a given day, Federer is quite dangerous on clay, but his results are not better than many great clay courters. It depends on what you want to emphasize. Just like any comparison between players of different era, this is subjective and objective. If a Federer fan wants to place Federer at the top of the list, he/she needs to give some reason as to why. Just because he is a "current" player is not enough in my opinion. Will players 10 years from now "automatically" be better than the guys at the top today? Not necessarily, in my opinion, but there will likely be changes to how the Game is being played at the highest level, driven by changing techniques, playing style, technology, and the sheer competition among the top guys.

Here's my list with just these players involved. Let's remember that guys like Courier and Bruguera have 2 FO titles and are not on this list at all.

1. Guillermo Vilas - 46
2. Thomas Muster - 40
3. Ilie Nastase - 28
4. Carlos Moya - 16
5. Roger Federer - 9
6. Andres Gomez - 16
7. Albert Costa - 13
8. Yannick Noah - 12
9. Juan Carlos Ferrero - 11
10. Adriano Panatta - 8
11. Gaston Gaudio - 8
12. Andre Agassi - 7
13. Michael Chang - 5
14. Yevgeny Kafelnikov - 4
15. Andres Gimeno - 3

All good points. I agree Vilas should be the most accomplished here other than for the reason of most clay titles won, like Gen mentioned he also won the US Open on clay in 77, beating Connors in the final, so that would definitely put him ahead of Federer.

Li Ching Yuen
04-07-2010, 05:36 AM
Well if I dont know include all the "past greats" in the list it would insult many posters here on TTW, I'm not taking that risk.

Do it next time.
If they have a problem with that, they can go right ahead and f themselves.

There's a separate section on this board for dinosaur talk.

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 05:41 AM
Do it next time.
If they have a problem with that, they can go right ahead and f themselves.

There's a separate section on this board for dinosaur talk.

haha, if in that case, (IMO) 1989 would be a good "cut off" year to discuss all the 1 FO winners, as it's the beginning of the "Sampras....Chang" pack.

egn
04-07-2010, 06:18 AM
So kind of you to omit 3 best clay courters from your list:

Borg (6 clay slams + 9 clay master-equivalents)
Nadal (4 clay slams + 10 clay masters + the longest win streak on one surface in the history of tennis - 81 matches)
Kuerten (3 clay slams + ...)

Their title collection is so terribly inferior to Feddy's with his meagre 1 slam (won when Rafa was out of competition) and his great clay rivalry with Nadal 9:2 (guess who leads).

The thread was Rank These Clay Courters. If you read the list it was obvious he wanted to discuss the middle tier. WHO THE HELL NEEDS TO FOR ANOTHER TIME GO okay Borg is the best, Nadal is second and Kuerten, Lendl and Wilander battle it out for 3. With Rosewall placed in there depending on how supportive a certain person is on pre open era tennis.Oh and I agree with borgnumber1's list it is spot on.

THUNDERVOLLEY
04-07-2010, 06:24 AM
Here's my list with just these players involved. Let's remember that guys like Courier and Bruguera have 2 FO titles and are not on this list at all.

1. Guillermo Vilas - 46
2. Thomas Muster - 40
3. Ilie Nastase - 28
4. Carlos Moya - 16
5. Roger Federer - 9
6. Andres Gomez - 16
7. Albert Costa - 13
8. Yannick Noah - 12
9. Juan Carlos Ferrero - 11
10. Adriano Panatta - 8
11. Gaston Gaudio - 8
12. Andre Agassi - 7
13. Michael Chang - 5
14. Yevgeny Kafelnikov - 4
15. Andres Gimeno - 3

Yeah, I do not know how Courier & Bruguera could be left off of the OP's list, if the discussion is to be taken seriously.

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 06:42 AM
Yeah, I do not know how Courier & Bruguera could be left off of the OP's list, if the discussion is to be taken seriously.

Hint, how many French Opens does Courier have?

THUNDERVOLLEY
04-07-2010, 06:52 AM
how many French Opens does Courier have?

How many does Federer have?

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 06:56 AM
How many does Federer have?

same as the rest in the list. Do you still not get it? oh my....

TMF
04-07-2010, 06:57 AM
Roger Federer
Gaston Gaudio
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Albert Costa
Andre Agassi
Carlos Moya
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Thomas Muster
Andres Gomez
Michael Chang
Yannick Noah
Guillermo Vilas
Adriano Panatta
Ilie Nastase
Andres Gimeno

You have Vilas, why not Borg? No Guga but 6 different players from the 90s?
You list consists of all players in the open era except one player - Andres Gimeno. I'm sure the senior citizens from the "Former Player Talk" forum would have alot to say about your list. Haha.

Augustus
04-07-2010, 06:59 AM
You have Vilas, why not Borg? No Guga but 6 different players from the 90s?
You list consists of all players in the open era except one player - Andres Gimeno. I'm sure the senior citizens from the "Former Player Talk" forum would have alot to say about your list. Haha.

The OP wants to rank the players that won one French Open, is that so difficult to understand?

TMF
04-07-2010, 07:06 AM
The OP wants to rank the players that won one French Open, is that so difficult to understand?

Oh I see. The op should be more clear in his initial post b/c it raised the question right away when many other greats are left out.:)

Augustus
04-07-2010, 07:08 AM
Oh I see. The op should be more clear in his initial post b/c it raised the question right away when many other greats are left out.:)

Yeah, the thread title should gave made clear it's about one-time French Open winners.

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 07:09 AM
Oh I see. The op should be more clear in his initial post b/c it raised the question right away when many other greats are left out.:)

Yeah, the thread title should gave made clear it's about one-time French Open winners.



I've always assumed all TTW posters have great knowledge of tennis history, I thought it'd be obvious what the players on the list have in common.;):twisted:

TMF
04-07-2010, 07:24 AM
LOL based on what? Winning only 1 Roland Garros, 0 Rome titles, and 0 Monte Carlo titles. Sorry I guess it is all those Hamburg and Estoril victories, the stuff clay court legends are made of.

Seriously, you are clown! It isn't about just one FO, but Roger consistently making to the finals. In fact, Roger made 5 straight semi, something even Nadal(clay goat) haven't done in this era. Fine if you don't want to give any credits to Roger, but don't be a smart-*** by simply bringing up Rome or MC but ignore everything else. Shut up!!!

Augustus
04-07-2010, 07:32 AM
Seriously, you are clown! It isn't about just one FO, but Roger consistently making to the finals. In fact, Roger made 5 straight semi, something even Nadal(clay goat) haven't done in this era. Fine if you don't want to give any credits to Roger, but don't be a smart-*** by simply bringing up Rome or MC but ignore everything else. Shut up!!!

Roger Federer's career on clay

- French Open: WON 2009; runner-up 2006, 2007, 2008; SF 2008.

- Monte Carlo: runner-up 2006, 2007, 2008.
- Rome: runner-up 2003, 2006.
- Hamburg: WON 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007; runner-up 2008.
- Madrid: WON 2009.

- Other clay titles: Munich 2003, Gstaad 2004, Estoril.

Not bad.

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 07:33 AM
Seriously, you are clown! It isn't about just one FO, but Roger consistently making to the finals. In fact, Roger made 5 straight semi, something even Nadal(clay goat) haven't done in this era. Fine if you don't want to give any credits to Roger, but don't be a smart-*** by simply bringing up Rome or MC but ignore everything else. Shut up!!!

Well, I'm still waiting for his reply as to why he thinks Madrid is a better achievement than Hamburg? Seriously.


There are many clay courters on that list who have achieved more than 1 French Open title and 1 Madrid title.

those are the biggest things he has achieved on clay yes. So his biggest claim to greatness on clay is winning Hamburg and Estoril alot.

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 07:37 AM
Roger Federer's career on clay

- French Open: WON 2009; runner-up 2006, 2007, 2008; SF 2008.

- Monte Carlo: runner-up 2006, 2007, 2008.
- Rome: runner-up 2003, 2006.
- Hamburg: WON 2002, 2004, 2005.
- Madrid: WON 2009.

- Other clay titles: Munich 2003, Gstaad 2004, Estoril.

Not bad.

Actually should also add: Hamburg WON 2007, Hamburg Final 2008.

THUNDERVOLLEY
04-07-2010, 07:56 AM
Yeah, the thread title should gave made clear it's about one-time French Open winners.

Exactly.



GasquetGOAT: how about you start a poll with the same standards--only about the hard courts?

Augustus
04-07-2010, 07:58 AM
Actually should also add: Hamburg WON 2007, Hamburg Final 2008.

Fixed it. :D

sh@de
04-07-2010, 08:03 AM
Yes I have heard that excuse for the 1000th time only already. If one says "if Nadal wasnt there" I could say what if the overall clay court field wasnt such a joke during much of Federer's success there.

There are many clay courters on that list who have achieved more than 1 French Open title and 1 Madrid title.

And how do you know it was a joke? How do you know it wasn't just Nadal and Fed being too damn good for everybody else, like they've been for the other surfaces?

Seriously... use your brain dammit.

Cyan
04-07-2010, 08:11 AM
Ranking these guys as far as clay court prowess is very tough. They are all one-time French Open Champions. Keep in mind that if we give Federer "extra credit" for losing to an all-time great such as Nadal, a guy like Vilas should get some benefit for having to face Borg during Borg's reign. Vilas dropped 2 finals at the FO to Borg and 1 more to Wilander in 1982 (3 FO finals, 1 FO title).

Now, Agassi, also has 2 FO finals he lost, but he lost to Gomez and Courier (also really good clay courters, but not at Nadal's level).

Since all these guys have 1 FO title, I've listed total number of total clay court titles as a preliminary "tiebreaker". Looking at the list of players, ranked by total number of clay court titles, I'd put Federer at about 5 on the list, after giving him some extra credit since he plays in Nadal's era. He is still pretty far behind a few of the other guys in terms of total clay court titles.

These guys at the top should get credit for winning many clay court titles, besides just the 1 FO title. So, I wouldn't rank them behind Federer just because they played in "earlier years". Will a 1 time FO champion in say 10 years NECESSARILY be better than Federer because of "natural evolution" of the Sport? I wouldn't think so. On a given day, Federer is quite dangerous on clay, but his results are not better than many great clay courters.

It depends on what you want to emphasize. Just like any comparison between players of different eras, this is a subjective and objective analysis. If a Federer fan wants to place Federer at the top of the list, he/she needs to give some reason as to why.

Just because he is a "current" player is not enough in my opinion. Will players 10 years from now "automatically" be better than the guys at the top today? Not necessarily, in my opinion, but there will likely be changes to how the Game is being played at the highest level, driven by changing techniques, playing style, technology, and the sheer competition among the top guys.

Here's my list with just these players involved. Let's remember that guys like Courier and Bruguera have 2 FO titles and are not on this list at all.

1. Guillermo Vilas - 46
2. Thomas Muster - 40
3. Ilie Nastase - 28
4. Carlos Moya - 16
5. Roger Federer - 9
6. Andres Gomez - 16
7. Albert Costa - 13
8. Yannick Noah - 12
9. Juan Carlos Ferrero - 11
10. Adriano Panatta - 8
11. Gaston Gaudio - 8
12. Andre Agassi - 7
13. Michael Chang - 5
14. Yevgeny Kafelnikov - 4
15. Andres Gimeno - 3

Great post. Agreed.

jelle v
04-07-2010, 10:06 AM
I'm just going to rate according to what I "feel" about their claycourtgame, not their results... and I'm just going to rate the players I know/saw play. Sorry, I don't know the older players. i only know them from name and it would make no sense if i included them on this list, because it would be based on nothing.

1) Thomas Muster
2) Juan Carlos Ferrero
3) Albert Costa
4) Roger Federer
5) Gaston Gaudio (if only he hadn't been such a headcase)
6) Carlos Moya (I never thought highly of him, sorry)
7) Michael Chang
8) Andre Agassi
9) Yevgeni Kafelnikov

Augustus
04-07-2010, 10:10 AM
I'm just going to rate according to what I "feel" about their claycourtgame, not their results... and I'm just going to rate the players I know/saw play. Sorry, I don't know the older players. i only know them from name and it would make no sense if i included them on this list, because it would be based on nothing.

1) Thomas Muster
2) Juan Carlos Ferrero
3) Albert Costa
4) Roger Federer
5) Gaston Gaudio (if only he hadn't been such a headcase)
6) Carlos Moya (I never thought highly of him, sorry)
7) Michael Chang
8) Andre Agassi
9) Yevgeni Kafelnikov

What made you rank Costa over Federer? Just curious...

jelle v
04-07-2010, 11:52 AM
What made you rank Costa over Federer? Just curious...

That was something where I was in doubt.. :neutral: But in my opinion he has the more complete claycourt game and the better backhand on clay.. Also more use of angles, more use of dropshots (although Federer is using them much more these days). I don't know, difficult choice for me, I would love to see a match between them.

borg number one
04-07-2010, 12:14 PM
Hear Borg on Federer possibly winning for the first time at the French Open. Neat clip here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0qxu1XYuhQ

Some Borg examples on clay:

His consistency and power:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZZMuXBr_Hk (vs. Vilas)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o (vs. Lendl)

His blazing speed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY (vs. Connors in 1979. Thanks Krosero!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL__OcegrbY (vs. Lendl)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQVdZNsyuQ (vs. Vilas)

See him talking along with Yannick Noah at the FO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wItf8AA2jk

Borg and Pecci at their '80 FO SF:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV7hteazFYI

World Beater
04-07-2010, 12:50 PM
i would be ok to rank rosewall as a greater player than federer.

yeah too bad for roger that even though skills wise he may be better than rosewall..you get credit for how much better you are than the rest of the current generation - that is greatness.

therefore rosewall is the best here.

valiant
04-07-2010, 12:52 PM
Off topic - I just saw what the French crowd did to Hingis during the match against graf. She was just 18.

swordtennis
04-07-2010, 01:24 PM
Borg #1,
Love these links and history. If you have any of the players just hanging out or practicing. I like to see what these players personalities are. Behind the scenes stuff like before and after matches and practicing and interviews.
Can watch this stuff all day.

thalivest
04-07-2010, 01:29 PM
Ranking these guys as far as clay court prowess is very tough. They are all one-time French Open Champions. Keep in mind that if we give Federer "extra credit" for losing to an all-time great such as Nadal, a guy like Vilas should get some benefit for having to face Borg during Borg's reign. Vilas dropped 2 finals at the FO to Borg and 1 more to Wilander in 1982 (3 FO finals, 1 FO title).

Now, Agassi, also has 2 FO finals he lost, but he lost to Gomez and Courier (also really good clay courters, but not at Nadal's level).

Since all these guys have 1 FO title, I've listed total number of total clay court titles as a preliminary "tiebreaker". Looking at the list of players, ranked by total number of clay court titles, I'd put Federer at about 5 on the list, after giving him some extra credit since he plays in Nadal's era. He is still pretty far behind a few of the other guys in terms of total clay court titles.

These guys at the top should get credit for winning many clay court titles, besides just the 1 FO title. So, I wouldn't rank them behind Federer just because they played in "earlier years". Will a 1 time FO champion in say 10 years NECESSARILY be better than Federer because of "natural evolution" of the Sport? I wouldn't think so. On a given day, Federer is quite dangerous on clay, but his results are not better than many great clay courters.

It depends on what you want to emphasize. Just like any comparison between players of different eras, this is a subjective and objective analysis. If a Federer fan wants to place Federer at the top of the list, he/she needs to give some reason as to why.

Just because he is a "current" player is not enough in my opinion. Will players 10 years from now "automatically" be better than the guys at the top today? Not necessarily, in my opinion, but there will likely be changes to how the Game is being played at the highest level, driven by changing techniques, playing style, technology, and the sheer competition among the top guys.

Here's my list with just these players involved. Let's remember that guys like Courier and Bruguera have 2 FO titles and are not on this list at all.

1. Guillermo Vilas - 46
2. Thomas Muster - 40
3. Ilie Nastase - 28
4. Carlos Moya - 16
5. Roger Federer - 9
6. Andres Gomez - 16
7. Albert Costa - 13
8. Yannick Noah - 12
9. Juan Carlos Ferrero - 11
10. Adriano Panatta - 8
11. Gaston Gaudio - 8
12. Andre Agassi - 7
13. Michael Chang - 5
14. Yevgeny Kafelnikov - 4
15. Andres Gimeno - 3

Sorry but no way Moya is better than Federer on clay. In fact thinking he is, is a true joke. Ferrero is also clearly better than Moya on clay, and way better than Gomez, Costa, and Noah too. Gaudio above Agassi!?! If that is a ranking list you did a terrible job.

borg number one
04-07-2010, 01:30 PM
Borg #1,
Love these links and history. If you have any of the players just hanging out or practicing. I like to see what these players personalities are. Behind the scenes stuff like before and after matches and practicing and interviews.
Can watch this stuff all day.


Me too. I'm glad you like those. I love that tennis stuff. We see a bit of the person behind the persona.

NamRanger
04-07-2010, 01:34 PM
Sorry but no way Moya is better than Federer on clay. In fact thinking he is, is a true joke. Ferrero is also clearly better than Moya on clay, and way better than Gomez, Costa, and Noah too. Gaudio above Agassi!?! If that is a ranking list you did a terrible job.




He did have a fairly easy time winning the FO, and to be honest his draw overall was much stronger than Federer's (which consisted of Haas, Del Potro, Soderling in the later rounds). Moya played Mantilla, Rios, and Corretja in the later rounds. I would say Rios and Corretja are both better claycourt players than Haas and Soderling. He also eliminated Corretja, Pioline, Kafelnikov, and Kraicjek all who are very capable players at Monte Carlo.



His consistency isn't there, but if we're comparing peak to peak performances it's actually not a long shot to say Moya could probably give Federer a run for his money, especially when 30 something year old Moya took prime Federer to the brink at Hamburg in 2007.

thalivest
04-07-2010, 01:43 PM
He did have a fairly easy time winning the FO, and to be honest his draw overall was much stronger than Federer's (which consisted of Haas, Del Potro, Soderling in the later rounds). Moya played Mantilla, Rios, and Corretja in the later rounds. I would say Rios and Corretja are both better claycourt players than Haas and Soderling. He also eliminated Corretja, Pioline, Kafelnikov, and Kraicjek all who are very capable players at Monte Carlo.

His consistency isn't there, but if we're comparing peak to peak performances it's actually not a long shot to say Moya could probably give Federer a run for his money, especially when 30 something year old Moya took prime Federer to the brink at Hamburg in 2007.

Moya is 0-7 vs Federer overall and in 2004 when he was having one of his best clay court seasons ever he got spanked by Federer when they played. He also got spanked the next year when he played Federer at the French in 2005, although 2004 was probably his last "prime" year but in any case it is clear Federer has the big edge even if you want to get into head to head. The main issue at hand though is not a head to head summary, but that Moya only made it past the quarters of the French Open only once, and this certainly wasnt due to too much competition when one runs over his losses. He has also won only 2 Masters titles on clay his long career, and again this had nothing to do with competition but alot of inconsistency and inability to often beat any noteworthy competition. Prime Federer would never lose to guys like Albert Portas, Martin Verkerk, Guillermo Canas, and others Moya lost to at the French during some of the best years of his career, or atleast not that many times. Prime Federer >>> Prime Moya on any surface.

Yeah I do agree Moya had a tougher draw to his FO title than Federer in 2009 but Federer of 2005-2007 would have had no problem at all winning the FO with Moya's 98 draw still especialy with Corretja playing as if he were showing up for a wedding rather than a tennis match (what a pathetic display that day from a guy who was probably atleast as good a clay courter as Moya overall). Also Del Potro playing the way he was vs Federer at the French this year would have powered Moya off the court in 3 sets I am sure.

I am not saying Moya could never give Federer tough matches on clay with both in their primes, maybe even win once in awhile, but overall no way he is the better clay courter is my point. No way is Moya over Ferrero either who the poster I responded to ranked him 6 spots above which is crazy. Ferrero's achievements on clay are far beyond Moya, achievements as in doing very well in the French and Masters, not winning Umag, and when both where near their best Ferrero clearly outclassed Moya on clay.

swordtennis
04-07-2010, 01:45 PM
Me too. I'm glad you like those. I love that tennis stuff. We see a bit of the person behind the persona.

I notice Borg and Vilas hit with alot of topspin. More than I thought they did....Poor Pecci. He was physically ran over after that match. Cuaght some of what he said and was like "I have no answer" to that effect. LOL. While Borg was just fine and placid and taking off his shoes. Good stuff...
Lendl was getting ready to go out and play at the end there..Semis or Quarters...
Great quality footage of Pecci/Borg.

swordtennis
04-07-2010, 01:47 PM
Moya is 0-7 vs Federer overall and in 2004 when he was having one of his best clay court seasons ever he got spanked by Federer when played. He also got spanked the next year when he played Federer at the French in 2005, although 2004 was probably his last "prime" year but in any case it is clear Federer has the big edge even if you want to get into head to head. The main issue at hand though is not a head to head summary, but that Moya only made it past the quarters of the French Open only once, and this certainly wasnt due to too much competition when one runs over his losses. He has also won only 2 Masters titles on clay his long career, and again this had nothing to do with competition but alot of inconsistency and inability to often beat any noteworthy competition. Prime Federer would never lose to guys like Albert Portas, Martin Verkerk, Guillermo Canas, and others Moya lost to at the French during some of the best years of his career, or atleast not that many times. Prime Federer >>> Prime Moya on any surface.

Yeah I do agree Moya had a tougher draw to his FO title than Federer in 2009 but Federer of 2005-2007 would have had no problem at all winning the FO with Moya's 98 draw still especialy with Corretja playing as if he were showing up for a wedding rather than a tennis match.

I agree. Fed>> Moya. 2006 French Open Fed was playing phenomenal on the clay and just died in the final.

borg number one
04-07-2010, 01:57 PM
Sorry but no way Moya is better than Federer on clay. In fact thinking he is, is a true joke. Ferrero is also clearly better than Moya on clay, and way better than Gomez, Costa, and Noah too. Gaudio above Agassi!?! If that is a ranking list you did a terrible job.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion and your own list. I gave Moya the nod over Federer, because he was very tough at RG when he won, in terms of peak performance. Yet, I thought that Federer was above Gomez and some others who had more clay court titles. I was really focused on total clay titles as a measure of clay dominance overall (for cases where the French was a real anomaly for a particular player in terms of clay success).

As far as Agassi, he was pretty tough at RG, but he seemed really vulnerable at times out there in my opinion. Against both Courier and Gomez, he looked a bit lost at times. I'm looking at titles (total especially) and focusing more on "peak level" when trying to differentiate between some of these guys, but others may differ. Also, both Gomez and Noah were pretty tough on clay. Have you seen them play in their primes? Noah was very athletic and had an excellent overall game. Meanwhile, Gomez had a massive forehand.

thalivest
04-07-2010, 02:07 PM
I watched Moya many times at his best including when he won Roland Garros. I didnt think he was unbelievably good even when he won. He benefited from extreme underperformances from both Rios and Corretja (McEnroe announcing at the time said the same thing). As for Mantilla he is good but that isnt exactly the toughest opponent and it was still a tough 4 setter. If he was that good he would have made another semifinal at the French atleast which he couldnt do even with some cushy draws.

What is with ranking Moya 3rd and Ferrero 9th? Do you really believe the Moya of the 98 French would have ever beaten the Ferrero of the 2003 French.

I dont think overall clay court titles is a good barometer since many of those guys like Vilas, Muster, and Moya play alot of Mickey Mouse type events to pad their stats. In the case of Moya he won Umag 5 times, Bueno Aires three times, Chennai twice, Acapulco twice, Bastad, you get the picture. He is certainly not better than Federer or Ferrero based on winning events like that when he cant fare nearly as well at the French Open and the Masters events with everyone there.

Ferrero was Kuerten's biggest rival by far on clay in 2001 and clearly considered the best clay courter in the World in 02 and 03. He was a minor underperformer at the French with a dissapointing performance vs Kuerten in the 01 FO semis, and a choke in the 2002 final. However no way would Gomez, Noah, Costa, and certainly not Moya have been in that role as the dominant 1 or 2 clay courters in the World for 3 years if they played then or any other point in time.

prosealster
04-07-2010, 03:54 PM
I watched Moya many times at his best including when he won Roland Garros. I didnt think he was unbelievably good even when he won. He benefited from extreme underperformances from both Rios and Corretja (McEnroe announcing at the time said the same thing). As for Mantilla he is good but that isnt exactly the toughest opponent and it was still a tough 4 setter. If he was that good he would have made another semifinal at the French atleast which he couldnt do even with some cushy draws.

What is with ranking Moya 3rd and Ferrero 9th? Do you really believe the Moya of the 98 French would have ever beaten the Ferrero of the 2003 French.

I dont think overall clay court titles is a good barometer since many of those guys like Vilas, Muster, and Moya play alot of Mickey Mouse type events to pad their stats. In the case of Moya he won Umag 5 times, Bueno Aires three times, Chennai twice, Acapulco twice, Bastad, you get the picture. He is certainly not better than Federer or Ferrero based on winning events like that when he cant fare nearly as well at the French Open and the Masters events with everyone there.

Ferrero was Kuerten's biggest rival by far on clay in 2001 and clearly considered the best clay courter in the World in 02 and 03. He was a minor underperformer at the French with a dissapointing performance vs Kuerten in the 01 FO semis, and a choke in the 2002 final. However no way would Gomez, Noah, Costa, and certainly not Moya have been in that role as the dominant 1 or 2 clay courters in the World for 3 years if they played then or any other point in time.

agreed..........

borg number one
04-07-2010, 05:04 PM
Moya was really playing well in 1998-1999 (when he got to #1). He came on the scene in 1997, and quickly took a French Title. He dropped off quite a bit after his back injury in late 1999 when he injured his back. When he won the French in 1998, he beat Grosjean in the first round (quite tough on clay at the FO), along with Rios and Mantilla later in the draw. He lost in the 1999 FO to Agassi, who played quite tough that match. He lost in the first round of the FO in 2000. For him to be top 2 on clay for 3 years would not be too far fetched.

Now after Federer started really emerging (2003-2004), Moya was likely NOT the player he was through 1999. He did get beaten badly by Federer at the FO in 2005, but Moya from 1998-1999 was likely quite a bit tougher on clay than Moya by 2005. Moya started getting really hot in 1998, and reached #1 in 1999. His back injury pushed his ranking up in 2000, but he did well in 2001-2002. Yet, by 2003, his ranking was in sharp decline. He finished 2007 ranked #17 with a strong year, but he was consistently ranked about 30-40 after 2004. So once Federer got really good (2004-2005), Moya was not the same player he was in 1999 when he took the FO title.

Anyway, I can see the justification for ranking Federer ahead of Moya on the clay list, since he won handily at the FO in 2005 against him. Yet, I think a 1999 Moya would likely have been tougher to handle and was capable of beating Federer on clay.

kishnabe
04-07-2010, 05:04 PM
1. Bjorn Borg
2. Ken Rosewall
3. Rafael Nadal
4.Thomas Muster
5.Guillermo Vilas
6.Ilie Nastase
7.Roger Federer
8.Adriano Panatta
9.Gustavo Kuerten
10.Juan Carlos Ferrero
11.Ivan Lendl
12. Mats Willander
13.Albert Costa
14. Guillermo Coria
15.Yevgeny Kafelnikov
16.Andre Agassi
17.Yannick Noah
18.Michael Chang
19.Andres Gimeno
20.Carlos Moya
21.Andres Gomez
22.Gaston Gaudio

thalivest
04-07-2010, 05:11 PM
Moya was really playing well in 1998-1999 (when he got to #1). He came on the scene in 1997, and quickly took a French Title. He dropped off quite a bit after his back injury in late 1999 when he injured his back. When he won the French in 1998, he beat Grosjean in the first round (quite tough on clay at the FO), along with Rios and Mantilla later in the draw. He lost in the 1999 FO to Agassi, who played quite tough that match. He lost in the first round of the FO in 2000. For him to be top 2 on clay for 3 years would not be too far fetched.

Now after Federer started really emerging (2003-2004), Moya was likely NOT the player he was through 1999. He did get beaten badly by Federer at the FO in 2005, but Moya from 1998-1999 was likely quite a bit tougher on clay than Moya by 2005. Moya started getting really hot in 1998, and reached #1 in 1999. His back injury pushed his ranking up in 2000, but he did well in 2001-2002. Yet, by 2003, his ranking was in sharp decline. He finished 2007 ranked #17 with a strong year, but he was consistently ranked about 30-40 after 2004. So once Federer got really good (2004-2005), Moya was not the same player he was in 1999 when he took the FO title.

Anyway, I can see the justification for ranking Federer ahead of Moya on the clay list, since he won handily at the FO in 2005 against him. Yet, I think a 1999 Moya would likely have been tougher to handle and was capable of beating Federer on clay.

Moya in 2004 had one of his best years ever. He ended it ranked #5 in the World I believe, he won Rome which is 1 of the only 2 Masters titles he ever won, and he was one of the favorities at the French this year. Moya of 2004 was basically no different from 1998 or 1999. Moya also lost the first ever match he played against Federer when Federer was only 17 and weeks before Moya became #1 for the only time of his career, even though that was on hard courts. There is nothing anything could say that would convince me Moya is a better player than Federer on any surface.

Anyway your worst ranking of all was not of Federer, it was of course Moya, and even more of Ferrero. You still havent addressed your ranking of Ferrero or how on earth you could ever conclude Ferrero would be 6 spots lower than Moya on clay, let alone below all those others you had him below. Ferrero is in fact clearly a superior clay courter to Moya, let alone a much weaker one. Ferrero's ranking especialy compared to Moya was inexplicable and I would like to see you even begin to try and justify it. Are you even half aware of Ferrero's clay court resume at the French and Masters events vs Moya. Have you ever actually seen the two of them play each other, especialy on clay. Ferrero at his best would beat Moya at his best almost everytime on clay, I have no doubt about that. Ferrero at his best is also one of the dominant clay courters, Moya at his best is not and never was.

PS- Moya ever reaching #1 just shows what a weak field it was around them, far weaker than the current field you like to say is weak. Could anyone imagine Moya at his peak overall ever ranking higher than maybe #5 today (I doubt he could even be that high).

fed_rulz
04-07-2010, 05:19 PM
The most prestigious and important clay court event is the French Open, followed by Rome and Monte Carlo. What is so shocking about that news? That is the way it has been for decades.

that exists only in your mind. may be earlier, but certainly not now. all master's series events are loaded with the top players. it's like saying that the indian wells tournament is more important than miami. the clay masters carry equal # of points, have pretty much the same set of players competing, same prize money, etc.

fed_rulz
04-07-2010, 05:31 PM
Ranking these guys as far as clay court prowess is very tough. They are all one-time French Open Champions. Keep in mind that if we give Federer "extra credit" for losing to an all-time great such as Nadal, a guy like Vilas should get some benefit for having to face Borg during Borg's reign. Vilas dropped 2 finals at the FO to Borg and 1 more to Wilander in 1982 (3 FO finals, 1 FO title).

Now, Agassi, also has 2 FO finals he lost, but he lost to Gomez and Courier (also really good clay courters, but not at Nadal's level).

Since all these guys have 1 FO title, I've listed total number of total clay court titles as a preliminary "tiebreaker". Looking at the list of players, ranked by total number of clay court titles, I'd put Federer at about 5 on the list, after giving him some extra credit since he plays in Nadal's era. He is still pretty far behind a few of the other guys in terms of total clay court titles.

These guys at the top should get credit for winning many clay court titles, besides just the 1 FO title. So, I wouldn't rank them behind Federer just because they played in "earlier years". Will a 1 time FO champion in say 10 years NECESSARILY be better than Federer because of "natural evolution" of the Sport? I wouldn't think so. On a given day, Federer is quite dangerous on clay, but his results are not better than many great clay courters.

It depends on what you want to emphasize. Just like any comparison between players of different eras, this is a subjective and objective analysis. If a Federer fan wants to place Federer at the top of the list, he/she needs to give some reason as to why.

Just because he is a "current" player is not enough in my opinion. Will players 10 years from now "automatically" be better than the guys at the top today? Not necessarily, in my opinion, but there will likely be changes to how the Game is being played at the highest level, driven by changing techniques, playing style, technology, and the sheer competition among the top guys.

Here's my list with just these players involved. Let's remember that guys like Courier and Bruguera have 2 FO titles and are not on this list at all.

1. Guillermo Vilas - 46
2. Thomas Muster - 40
3. Ilie Nastase - 28
4. Carlos Moya - 16
5. Roger Federer - 9
6. Andres Gomez - 16
7. Albert Costa - 13
8. Yannick Noah - 12
9. Juan Carlos Ferrero - 11
10. Adriano Panatta - 8
11. Gaston Gaudio - 8
12. Andre Agassi - 7
13. Michael Chang - 5
14. Yevgeny Kafelnikov - 4
15. Andres Gimeno - 3

while it's a great list, I'd use slightly different criteria -- performance at the most important tournaments. Muster & Co amassed a lot of titles at mickey-mouse tournaments, where the field wasn't deep. If # of clay titles is the criteria applied here, they why not extend the same to determine who was the best CC of all time? The reason is simple: all tournaments are not the same, and there is a reason for the hierarchy.

Federer certainly has a much better resume at the most important tournaments (FO, master's series) than moya & muster. IMO, he is certainly #2 on that list (and possibly #1, I'd have to look up Vilas' CC resume to compare). Plus neither muster nor moya played alongside someone ranked in the top 3 of all time on clay.

borg number one
04-07-2010, 05:33 PM
Moya in 2004 had one of his best years ever. He ended it ranked #5 in the World I believe, he won Rome which is 1 of the only 2 Masters titles he ever won, and he was one of the favorities at the French this year. Moya of 2004 was basically no different from 1998 or 1999. Moya also lost the first ever match he played against Federer when Federer was only 17 and weeks before Moya became #1 for the only time of his career, even though that was on hard courts. There is nothing anything could say that would convince me Moya is a better player than Federer on any surface.

Anyway your worst ranking of all was not of Federer, it was of course Moya, and even more of Ferrero. You still havent addressed your ranking of Ferrero or how on earth you could ever conclude Ferrero would be 6 spots lower than Moya on clay, let alone below all those others you had him below. Ferrero is in fact clearly a superior clay courter to Moya, let alone a much weaker one. Ferrero's ranking especialy compared to Moya was inexplicable and I would like to see you even begin to try and justify it. Are you even half aware of Ferrero's clay court resume at the French and Masters events vs Moya. Have you ever actually seen the two of them play each other, especialy on clay. Ferrero at his best would beat Moya at his best almost everytime on clay, I have no doubt about that. Ferrero at his best is also one of the dominant clay courters, Moya at his best is not and never was.

PS- Moya ever reaching #1 just shows what a weak field it was around them, far weaker than the current field you like to say is weak. Could anyone imagine Moya at his peak overall ever ranking higher than maybe #5 today (I doubt he could even be that high).

Moya had a terrible 2005 overall, so what he did in 2004 is not as relevant. He did do quite well in 2001-2004, after recovering from his back injury. I know you keep saying he wasn't THAT good in 1998, and that the field was just shallow back then, but Agassi played really well to take him out in 1999 on the way to the title. Anyway, I have seen both Ferrerro and Moya play many, many times. They are both excellent clay court players, as are most all the FO title holders. You act like there are HUGE differences between these guys on clay, Moya, Ferrero, and Federer. If one is better at his peak than the other two on clay, it's debatable.

borg number one
04-07-2010, 05:37 PM
while it's a great list, I'd use slightly different criteria -- performance at the most important tournaments. Muster & Co amassed a lot of titles at mickey-mouse tournaments, where the field wasn't deep. If # of clay titles is the criteria applied here, they why not extend the same to determine who was the best CC of all time? The reason is simple: all tournaments are not the same, and there is a reason for the hierarchy.

Federer certainly has a much better resume at the most important tournaments (FO, master's series) than moya & muster. IMO, he is certainly #2 on that list (and possibly #1, I'd have to look up Vilas' CC resume to compare). Plus neither muster nor moya played alongside someone ranked in the top 3 of all time on clay.

I understand what you are saying. The problem becomes comparing the most important tournaments. In the past it was primarily the Italian Open, Monte Carlo, and the French Open but now you have a different "mix" of clay tourneys. Anyway, I hear what you are saying. Federer has won some big clay court tourneys besides the French Open. As to Vilas, he held the consecutive clay win streak record on clay before Nadal beat it. Vilas had Borg to contend with and plenty of clay court specialists back then, who really don't exist anymore.

thalivest
04-07-2010, 05:56 PM
Moya had a terrible 2005 overall, so what he did in 2004 is not as relevant. He did do quite well in 2001-2004, after recovering from his back injury. I know you keep saying he wasn't THAT good in 1998, and that the field was just shallow back then, but Agassi played really well to take him out in 1999 on the way to the title. Anyway, I have seen both Ferrerro and Moya play many, many times. They are both excellent clay court players, as are most all the FO title holders. You act like there are HUGE differences between these guys on clay, Moya, Ferrero, and Federer. If one is better at his peak than the other two on clay, it's debatable.

I do think Ferrero at his peak was easily better than Moya on clay. Federer is a more debateable comparision as he was from a bit of a different era than both (despite being close to same age as Ferrero). Anyway my biggest issue isnt that you dont agree with me on Ferrero being clearly better than Moya on clay, and Federer also being better. It is that you somehow can find reason to rank Ferrero down at #9 below all those guys (and sorry but ranking him below Noah, Costa, and Gomez is absurd as well and yes I have seen those guys play) and rank Moya way up at #3, despite that opinions aside Ferrero's credentials on clay are far superior to Moya.

Lets compare:

French Open results:

Moya- 1 win, 3 quarterfinals
Ferrero- 1 win, 1 runner up, 2 semifinals

Rome and Monte Carlo:

Moya- 1 win, 1 runner up
Ferrero- 3 wins

Head to head on clay from 1998 to 2004 (covering various periods either or both were playing well: 4-1 for Ferrero


So please explain how somehow Moya is ranked 6 spots above Ferrero, or how Ferrero is below Noah, Gomez, and Costa to boot. When Costa beat Ferrero in that French Open final it was considered a huge upset by almost everyone, and a horrible loss for Ferrero, which in itself says who is considered the better clay courter.

harinder
04-07-2010, 05:57 PM
I dont think overall clay court titles is a good barometer since many of those guys like Vilas, Muster, and Moya play alot of Mickey Mouse type events to pad their stats. In the case of Moya he won Umag 5 times, Bueno Aires three times, Chennai twice, Acapulco twice, Bastad, you get the picture. He is certainly not better than Federer or Ferrero based on winning events like that when he cant fare nearly as well at the French Open and the Masters events with everyone there.

I agree that when looking at total number of cc titles there needs to be more emphasis on the masters series level. Another important factor is the overall consitency in these tournaments and the French Open.

Like all these others guys, Federer has won only 1 french, but he also has 3 runner ups and a semi. All four losses came to Nadal. This definately has to be a main factor. Additioanlly these were all done in consectutive years (2005-2009). How is that for consistency and 'peak performance' ?

5 out of 9 of Federer's cc titles were at the master series level. 4 in Hamburg and 1 in Madrid , however as Fed_Rulz mentioned, all ms series tournaments pretty much carry the same importance these days. Lets remember that Federer also has 3 runner ups (consecutive) at Monte Carlo and 2 runner ups at Rome, 4 of those losses coming to Nadal again.

Federer is at least 3rd on that list debatably behind nastase and vilas.

borg number one
04-07-2010, 06:30 PM
Ok, let's talk Ferrero vs. Gomez, Costa, and Noah, who I ranked ahead of Ferrero, after looking at total clay titles.

See some of Gomez' results on clay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9s_G%C3%B3mez

He won 16 of his titles on clay, including wins in finals over Agassi, Wilander, and Noah.

As for Noah, he was so tough that year at the FO in 1983, when he won it all. He beat Wilander easily, which was surprising, but he did it by controlling the net and baseline play. Wilander seemed a bit off that day and Noah was pumped up in Paris. He only lost 1 set while winning the tourney. He was 215-75 on clay during his career. Ferrerro is 224-77 on clay throughout his career, so they are in the same league in terms of winning %.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBfwDBd9Nd0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofVUj0Stbs8 (FO 4th rd in 1981, 4 set win over Vilas)

As far as Gaudio, I agree that he did fall off big time. Yet, at his best he was pretty tough. I'd have no problem putting Ferrerro ahead of Gaudio and lowering Gaudio on that list. His career record on clay, at 210-109, is pretty far back of Ferrerro, who is at 224-77 on clay.

thalivest
04-07-2010, 06:56 PM
Anyway here is my list of those guys in order:

1. Thomas Muster- at his best on clay he was better than Federer or Vilas and would beat either of them I believe.

2. Roger Federer- I still think this thread is a joke in that it is an excuse to unfairly buff Federer up by elminating all multi French Open winners of the Open Era which is stupid. Anyway Muster or Ferrero at their best beat Federer at his best on clay I think, Federer probably had the best overall career though. I split the difference.

3. Juan Carlos Ferrero- at his best I think he was better than Federer on clay but he didnt have the longevity due to injury.

4. Guillermo Vilas- great clay courter but he was even more useless vs Borg on clay than Federer was vs Nadal, by quite a bit actually. The upset French Open final loss to a 17 year old Wilander does not help him either.

5. Ilie Nastase- was great when he had his head screwed on right.

6. Adriana Panatta- I give him brownie points for beating Borg during his dominance to win the French, and being the only one who really gave Borg a tough time on clay (albeit largely due to matchup I suspect).

7. Andres Gimeno- not that different a level at the time from Nastase or Kodes.

8. Albert Costa- he was a very good performer in Masters and regular clay court events back in his prime. Finally put it together at the French past his prime.

9. Andre Agassi- I give him credit for his French Open record, but in many ways I dont think he is that outstanding or natural a clay court player.

10. Andres Gomez- he was a better clay courter than he was credited for, I agree there. Without Lendl all those years who knows.

11. Yannick Noah- Just because the string of players he beats for his French Open title was very impressive, even if his overall career wasnt as much.

12. Carlos Moya- pretty good performer on clay and at the French for years but rarely ever great. A bunch of Umag titles does not get you a high ranking for me.

13. Michael Chang- he did make it back to another French Open final, but his overall clay record does not have too much to distinguish it.

14. Yevgeny Kafelnikov- he was Kuerten's toughest opponent at the French for awhile which is admirable, and did win a French, but other than that there is little that distinguishes him as a great clay courter.

15. Gaston Gaudio- a fluke, nothing more.

borg number one
04-07-2010, 07:06 PM
Anyway here is my list of those guys in order:

1. Thomas Muster- at his best on clay he was better than Federer or Vilas and would beat either of them I believe.

2. Roger Federer- I still think this thread is a joke in that it is an excuse to unfairly buff Federer up by elminating all multi French Open winners of the Open Era which is stupid. Anyway Muster or Ferrero at their best beat Federer at his best on clay I think, Federer probably had the best overall career though. I split the difference.

3. Juan Carlos Ferrero- at his best I think he was better than Federer on clay but he didnt have the longevity due to injury.

4. Guillermo Vilas- great clay courter but he was even more useless vs Borg on clay than Federer was vs Nadal, by quite a bit actually. The upset French Open final loss to a 17 year old Wilander does not help him either.

5. Ilie Nastase- was great when he had his head screwed on right.

6. Adriana Panatta- I give him brownie points for beating Borg during his dominance to win the French, and being the only one who really gave Borg a tough time on clay (albeit largely due to matchup I suspect).

7. Andres Gimeno- not that different a level at the time from Nastase or Kodes.

8. Albert Costa- he was a very good performer in Masters and regular clay court events back in his prime. Finally put it together at the French past his prime.

9. Andre Agassi- I give him credit for his French Open record, but in many ways I dont think he is that outstanding or natural a clay court player.

10. Andres Gomez- he was a better clay courter than he was credited for, I agree there. Without Lendl all those years who knows.

11. Yannick Noah- Just because the string of players he beats for his French Open title was very impressive, even if his overall career wasnt as much.

12. Carlos Moya- pretty good performer on clay and at the French for years but rarely ever great. A bunch of Umag titles does not get you a high ranking for me.

13. Michael Chang- he did make it back to another French Open final, but his overall clay record does not have too much to distinguish it.

14. Yevgeny Kafelnikov- he was Kuerten's toughest opponent at the French for awhile which is admirable, and did win a French, but other than that there is little that distinguishes him as a great clay courter.

15. Gaston Gaudio- a fluke, nothing more.


Gimeno ahead of Agassi and Moya?? This is an outrage and is preposterous!!! Just kidding...lol. I'd rate him lower, but it's tough to call. I like much of your synopsis on these players. It's tough to differentiate between them, but you rightly focus on peak play primarily. I have no problem with Thomas Muster at or near the top. He was a clay monster during his peak years. As for Federer, you mentioned match ups and for some reason, watching him out there on clay (and not JUST because he's great on fast surfaces).

I really believe that he would have a real tough time beating Muster or Vilas (2 other tough lefties like Nadal). It's the Federer backhand that I focus on there. Muster and Vilas could hit high balls to Federer's backhand for days on end out there.

Meanwhile, Federer would have to produce sustained, brilliant offense to beat guys like that. He's capable of doing it and has some impressive clay results, but I still don't think he'd beat most of the guys on the list above without some very tough matches.

thalivest
04-07-2010, 07:10 PM
I sort of think Federer is a beneficiary of his time. I dont think he would be rated as great a clay courter as he is if he were born in another time. People focus on Nadal but the depth on clay most of the last 5 years is really shallow and Federer has capatilized on that . Federer is still a great clay courter of course, but Kuerten in 2004 really exposed many of Federer's shortcomings on clay. I agree that Muster and Vilas especialy would be very tough matchups for Federer on the dirt. I dont think we would be rating Federer so high up on the list, maybe even out of the top 5 of this group if he were born in another era, as while he could still win a French (maybe more than 1 depending) he also wouldnt be making every single clay court final like he was awhile today. I basically acknowledged his record to put him that high but couldnt bring myself to put him over Muster who was so much more a monster at his 95-96 peak than Federer ever was on clay.

abmk
04-07-2010, 08:19 PM
^^

I'm pretty sure he'd take another FO over the consistency of making clay finals day in day out, but losing them to nadal

Justdoit10
04-07-2010, 08:28 PM
So apparently Federer's one loss to kuerten proves all his shortcomings on clay? Federer lost to Albert Costa handily a month before. Sure he won Hamburg but the conditions there are extremely different. Federers form on clay was not even close to peak.

Jchurch
04-07-2010, 11:15 PM
I sort of think Federer is a beneficiary of his time. I dont think he would be rated as great a clay courter as he is if he were born in another time. People focus on Nadal but the depth on clay most of the last 5 years is really shallow and Federer has capatilized on that . Federer is still a great clay courter of course, but Kuerten in 2004 really exposed many of Federer's shortcomings on clay. I agree that Muster and Vilas especialy would be very tough matchups for Federer on the dirt. I dont think we would be rating Federer so high up on the list, maybe even out of the top 5 of this group if he were born in another era, as while he could still win a French (maybe more than 1 depending) he also wouldnt be making every single clay court final like he was awhile today. I basically acknowledged his record to put him that high but couldnt bring myself to put him over Muster who was so much more a monster at his 95-96 peak than Federer ever was on clay.

You do realize Federer 04 and Federer 05 were two different clay beasts don't you? Federer had changed his forehand quite a bit to make it more suitable to clay.

piece
04-08-2010, 12:13 AM
Federer is still a great clay courter of course, but Kuerten in 2004 really exposed many of Federer's shortcomings on clay.

I don't really understand why that match is used so often to demonstrate federer's purported "shortcomings on clay". From what I can remember, it was an extremely close straight setter - about as close as it could've been without going to tiebreaks. Both played really well and federer probably blew more chances than kuerten had in the entire match. Watching the highlights on youtube confirms what I can remember of it. Federer got to alot of deuces on kuerten's service games, and on almost every big point you see federer make an unforced error, or miss what would be a fairly routine defensive shot by his standards. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that the overall level of federer's play in that match was equal to kuerten's (that's assuming of course that you don't give special weighting to big points, which the scoring system of tennis obviously does).

Kuerten was awesome on clay at his best, and I don't think he was too far off his best that day (regardless of hip issues). And a pre-clay-prime federer showed, in my opinion, that he was a close match for kuerten playing great tennis. The biggest flaw in federer's clay court game that that match shoes to me is his relative trouble with kuerten's forehand - which was being hit pretty flat that day. I never thought I'd see federer struggle with a flat stroke like that, especially when the clay dulls the penetration of the shot.

dropshot winner
04-08-2010, 12:34 AM
Moya was really playing well in 1998-1999 (when he got to #1). He came on the scene in 1997, and quickly took a French Title. He dropped off quite a bit after his back injury in late 1999 when he injured his back. When he won the French in 1998, he beat Grosjean in the first round (quite tough on clay at the FO), along with Rios and Mantilla later in the draw. He lost in the 1999 FO to Agassi, who played quite tough that match. He lost in the first round of the FO in 2000. For him to be top 2 on clay for 3 years would not be too far fetched.

Now after Federer started really emerging (2003-2004), Moya was likely NOT the player he was through 1999. He did get beaten badly by Federer at the FO in 2005, but Moya from 1998-1999 was likely quite a bit tougher on clay than Moya by 2005. Moya started getting really hot in 1998, and reached #1 in 1999. His back injury pushed his ranking up in 2000, but he did well in 2001-2002. Yet, by 2003, his ranking was in sharp decline. He finished 2007 ranked #17 with a strong year, but he was consistently ranked about 30-40 after 2004. So once Federer got really good (2004-2005), Moya was not the same player he was in 1999 when he took the FO title.

Anyway, I can see the justification for ranking Federer ahead of Moya on the clay list, since he won handily at the FO in 2005 against him. Yet, I think a 1999 Moya would likely have been tougher to handle and was capable of beating Federer on clay.
Moya doesn't stand a chance against Federer on any surface. The result can be close when Moya plays well and Federer doesn't but that's about it.

The year after Moya's highest ever ranking (he was still top5) he got beat by 17 year old Federer who was ranked somewhere between top200 and top300. Federer is a disastrous match-up for Moya because Federer has the better forehand, backhand, serve, movement and net-game.

borg number one
04-08-2010, 05:51 AM
I just remembered prime Berastegui. That guy was tough and I recall that he had some massive topspin on his forehand. Yet, he won the FO twice unlike the players on the list. He's another guy that would have troubled Federer, Ferrero, and perhaps even Nadal some. I thought it would be fun to see some pics of these 15 on clay. When thinking about comparing them out there, sometimes pictures can do the trick. Pictures to follow...

Augustus
04-08-2010, 05:55 AM
I just remembered prime Berastegui. That guy was tough and I recall that he had some massive topspin on his forehand. Yet, he won the FO twice unlike the players on the list. He's another guy that would have troubled Federer, Ferrero, and perhaps even Nadal some. I thought it would be fun to see some pics of these 15 on clay. When thinking about comparing them out there, sometimes pictures can do the trick. Pictures to follow...

:confused: Bersategui never won the French, only reached the finals in 1994. He lost to Bruguera in four sets.

abmk
04-08-2010, 06:08 AM
I just remembered prime Berastegui. That guy was tough and I recall that he had some massive topspin on his forehand. Yet, he won the FO twice unlike the players on the list. He's another guy that would have troubled Federer, Ferrero, and perhaps even Nadal some. I thought it would be fun to see some pics of these 15 on clay. When thinking about comparing them out there, sometimes pictures can do the trick. Pictures to follow...

you are talking about bruguera, I'd assume. He was the only one I've seen hit with as much topspin consistently as nadal does ....

borg number one
04-08-2010, 06:09 AM
Guillermo Vilas

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_C8b8a4LXgN8/SbqoPJtJOiI/AAAAAAAACYc/2HcWslJHqKo/S220/vilas.jpg

Thomas Muster

http://www.steiermark.at/cms/bilder/1537/80/150/171/0613f405/muster.jpg

Ilie Nastase

http://tennis-masters-series.com/images/monte-carlo-masters-nastase.jpg

Carlos Moya

http://www2.tennisserver.com/images/meaney/070604/IMG_1107.jpg

borg number one
04-08-2010, 06:13 AM
you are talking about bruguera, I'd assume. He was the only one I've seen hit with as much topspin consistently as nadal does ....

My fault. I forgot, it was Bruguera, NOT Alberto Berastegui, who he beat in the 1994 final. Yes, Bruguera was tough and won the FO twice. Thanks for the clarification. My switch up..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2WvQM6GH0I (see him vs. Sampras in 1993)

dropshot winner
04-08-2010, 06:17 AM
I sort of think Federer is a beneficiary of his time. I dont think he would be rated as great a clay courter as he is if he were born in another time. People focus on Nadal but the depth on clay most of the last 5 years is really shallow and Federer has capatilized on that . Federer is still a great clay courter of course, but Kuerten in 2004 really exposed many of Federer's shortcomings on clay. I agree that Muster and Vilas especialy would be very tough matchups for Federer on the dirt. I dont think we would be rating Federer so high up on the list, maybe even out of the top 5 of this group if he were born in another era, as while he could still win a French (maybe more than 1 depending) he also wouldnt be making every single clay court final like he was awhile today. I basically acknowledged his record to put him that high but couldnt bring myself to put him over Muster who was so much more a monster at his 95-96 peak than Federer ever was on clay.

That makes no sense, lack of depth on the clay courts has mostly benefitted Nadal.

Runner-up trophys are worth nothing, so it doesn't matter if Federer losses against Nadal in a final or against Bruguera in the third round.

It's likely that Federer wouldn't have reached as many finals in a deep clay field without Nadal, but he very likely wouldn't have lost as many finals (IMO there's no one except Nadal who can beat a Rome 2006 Federer on clay).

Nadal on the other hand has won many clay titles playing average, yet Federer, Djokovic, Mathieu (RG06) and others let him off the hook and crumbled multiple times.

It's highly likely that that Nadal would have less titles in a deeper clay field, in Federer's case he would've reached less finals but likely won more of them.

Markov
04-08-2010, 06:21 AM
Roger Federer
Gaston Gaudio
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Albert Costa
Andre Agassi
Carlos Moya
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Thomas Muster
Andres Gomez
Michael Chang
Yannick Noah
Guillermo Vilas
Adriano Panatta
Ilie Nastase
Andres Gimeno

Vilas
Federer
Muster
Noah
Chang
Rest of the guys

borg number one
04-08-2010, 06:23 AM
Roger Federer

http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2009/05/18/qqFederer_wideweb__470x315,0.jpg

Andres Gomez

http://www.internationaltennismagazine.com/andresgomez250.gif

Albert Costa

http://www.all-about-tennis.com/images/albert_costa.jpg


Yannick Noah

http://clowntowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/yannick-noah.jpg

borg number one
04-08-2010, 06:29 AM
Juan Carlos Ferrero

http://cornedbeefhash.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/jc-ferrero-valencia083.jpg

Adriano Panatta

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iqFVpGAuRvI/RkZTq6vvEKI/AAAAAAAAAWE/yKizWdrl-Ak/s320/PANATTA.jpg

Gaston Gaudio

http://nbcsportsmedia2.msnbc.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040606/040606_gaudio_hmed.h2.jpg

Andre Agassi

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/0806/tennis.grand.slams/images/andre-agassi.jpg

borg number one
04-08-2010, 06:37 AM
Michael Chang

http://www.cnnsi.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/2001_frenchopen/news/2001/06/04/exits_survivors/4.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0443clC28i1xp/340x.jpg



Yevgeny Kafelnikov

http://www.estorilopen.net/4/common/photos/150x200/kafelnikov1.jpg

Andres Gimeno

http://www.radiosantcugat.cat/fotos/andres-gimeno.jpg

swordtennis
04-08-2010, 08:27 AM
You know Borg #1 I have been doing some serious soul searching and I actually am putting Borg as the clay court GOAT. Now I think Nadal is #2 but this cronic injury "xcuse" thing is making me drop Nadal down.
Just thought U might like to hear that. LOL!

Gen
04-08-2010, 11:38 PM
No, I won't Chronic injury "xcuse" is a chronic injury. If you abuse players for being injured, how dare you blabber about sports? It's unsportsmanlike.

pc1
04-09-2010, 05:13 AM
I won't rank them for now but I'd thought I make the comment that Gimeno is one of the finest clay court players ever and he probably would have won several French Opens if not for the fact he was in the Old Pro Tour and was unable to play the majors. He was a great player on all surfaces. He has beaten Laver and Rosewall numerous times to win tournaments.

borg number one
04-09-2010, 05:27 AM
You know Borg #1 I have been doing some serious soul searching and I actually am putting Borg as the clay court GOAT. Now I think Nadal is #2 but this cronic injury "xcuse" thing is making me drop Nadal down.
Just thought U might like to hear that. LOL!


Thanks Swordtennis. It'll be neat to watch this years FO with that eye on history, to see if Nadal can retake his "throne" on clay and to see if Federer can produce another magical run perhaps. I really love the tourney and in some ways, for me it's the most interesting slam behind Wimbledon. Some great clay matches are really physical and resemble "trench warfare". I hope Borg is there again, soaking it all in.

borg number one
04-09-2010, 05:31 AM
I won't rank them for now but I'd thought I make the comment that Gimeno is one of the finest clay court players ever and he probably would have won several French Opens if not for the fact he was in the Old Pro Tour and was unable to play the majors. He was a great player on all surfaces. He has beaten Laver and Rosewall numerous times to win tournaments.

Very interesting PC1. I didn't know that. What was the "old World Tour"? Were his best years in the late 1960's perhaps? Why was his situation different than players such as Laver after the Tour went professional in 1968 and became "open". It sounds like he was pretty good on fast surfaces too, having beaten Laver and Rosewall several times. Thanks.

swordtennis
04-09-2010, 07:48 AM
Thanks Swordtennis. It'll be neat to watch this years FO with that eye on history, to see if Nadal can retake his "throne" on clay and to see if Federer can produce another magical run perhaps. I really love the tourney and in some ways, for me it's the most interesting slam behind Wimbledon. Some great clay matches are really physical and resemble "trench warfare". I hope Borg is there again, soaking it all in.

Your welcome. Clay and grass are so beautiful. Man I love when they have the royalty of tennis at the GS's. Hope he and the other GOATs are there. Special sporting events. It will be historic on all fronts! Nadal wins, Historic. Fed wins historic. Fed beats Nadal at the French, MIND BLOWING historic event (unlikely as it is :)).
Love it love it love it!

borg number one
04-10-2010, 05:58 AM
Swordtennis. Me too. See Borg watching Federer and Nadal with Borg below. Then, see Borg when he was in action at the FO.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01418/borg-federer_1418845c.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/09/article-0-0187E12500000578-190_468x517.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/1981/0615_large.jpg