PDA

View Full Version : Best on their worst surface


timnz
06-14-2011, 12:56 PM
Rank these greats playing on their worst surface

Nadal -indoor (some people say hard but I have no idea why since it is so clear that it is indoor)

Federer -clay

McEnroe-clay

Becker-clay

Borg-hard (?????? Actually I think Borg was the only player not to have a weakest surface)

Edberg-clay

Laver-clay


I would put federer first in this list and Becker and nadal near the bottom of the lisr

timnz
06-14-2011, 12:58 PM
Should have put it In The former pro player forum.....

Murrayfan31
06-14-2011, 01:00 PM
Djokovic Grass
Murray Clay

Andres
06-14-2011, 01:08 PM
"Indoor" is not a surface

BrooklynNY
06-14-2011, 01:09 PM
The worst surface to play tennis on is Federer.

Pwned
06-14-2011, 01:19 PM
Rank these greats playing on their worst surface

Nadal -indoor (some people say hard but I have no idea why since it is so clear that it is indoor)

Federer -clay

McEnroe-clay

Becker-clay

Borg-hard (?????? Actually I think Borg was the only player not to have a weakest surface)

Edberg-clay

Laver-clay


I would put federer first in this list and Becker and nadal near the bottom of the lisrIndoor is hard. There are no carpet indoor courts. And only one indoor court is considered medium/fast.

Nadalfan89
06-14-2011, 01:21 PM
McEnroe is the obvious choice. He was abysmal on clay. Nadal has multiple hardcourt master's, a USO and an AO so he can't be it.

Nadal has achieved more on hardcourt than Federer did on clay.

timeisonmyside
06-14-2011, 01:49 PM
I think some people are misunderstanding the question. The OP is asking who is the best player on their corresponding worst surface.

I would say Federer - clay, but it's kind of hard to call clay his 'worst' surface. He probably personally likes to play on the stuff, but his only problem is that he loses to the clay court GOAT. He'd more than likely would have 5 FO's and many more masters on clay if it weren't for Nadal.

zagor
06-14-2011, 01:57 PM
Federer and Lendl if you don't count HC as Nadal's worst surface although I can't see how indoors qualifies as a different surface exactly? Maybe indoor carpet but that surface is extinct,Masters Cup is played on a low bouncing slowish HC.

accidental
06-14-2011, 03:08 PM
McEnroe is the obvious choice. He was abysmal on clay. Nadal has multiple hardcourt master's, a USO and an AO so he can't be it.

Nadal has achieved more on hardcourt than Federer did on clay.

Abysmal on clay? He was 1 set from serve and volleying his way to the Roland Garros title

Becker was worse on clay, also Sampras who isnt on this list for some reason

fed_rulz
06-14-2011, 04:07 PM
Abysmal on clay? He was 1 set from serve and volleying his way to the Roland Garros title

Becker was worse on clay, also Sampras who isnt on this list for some reason

They are obvious choices for not being the best on their worst surface, so it must've been easy to exclude them.

timnz
06-14-2011, 04:08 PM
"Indoor" is not a surface

In terms of the conditions affecting play - absolutely it is. There is quite a difference due to that.

timnz
06-14-2011, 04:08 PM
Depends when you ask. In 2005 Nadal was a clay court specialist and everyone said he couldnt win on anything.

Then he just kept winning and winning and winning.

Clearly Nadal is the best as he is not a clay purr specialist . He has an astounding 6 FO's and the greatest winning streak ever on clay.
Clearly hard courts are his worst surface as well as grass.

Even so Nadal has won the USO ,AO an Wimbledon twice. He is the best on his worst surfaces by far.

No one else can claim a grand slam on a surface they hate.

Again, one needs to evaluate Nadal on Indoor not Hard.

timnz
06-14-2011, 04:09 PM
McEnroe is the obvious choice. He was abysmal on clay. Nadal has multiple hardcourt master's, a USO and an AO so he can't be it.

Nadal has achieved more on hardcourt than Federer did on clay.

Indoor Nadal's weakest surface.

Tammo
06-14-2011, 04:12 PM
Djokovic Grass
Murray Clay

I can see why Djokovic is not so good on grass, but Murray has done so much better on clay this year.

NadalAgassi
06-14-2011, 04:13 PM
It seems Federer fans consider indoors not a surface when they dont want Nadal leading their outdoor hard court head to head 4-1, but count indoors as a surface when it suits their argument.

Anyway if indoors is not a surface probably Nadal on hard courts. If it is then clearly Laver on clay. Federer on clay is definitely not the winner though.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 04:14 PM
McEnroe is the obvious choice. He was abysmal on clay. Nadal has multiple hardcourt master's, a USO and an AO so he can't be it.

Nadal has achieved more on hardcourt than Federer did on clay.

Technically yes but Nadal had twice as many chances on his worst surface than on his best so it's not a fair comparison. Anyway, Federer on clay is way better than Nadal on hard courts so it doesn't really matter.

TMF
06-14-2011, 04:15 PM
If you include Becker - clay

then definitely you should include Lendl - grass.

Pwned
06-14-2011, 04:16 PM
It seems Federer fans consider indoors not a surface when they dont want Nadal leading their outdoor hard court head to head 4-1, but count indoors as a surface when it suits their argument.

Anyway if indoors is not a surface probably Nadal on hard courts. If it is then clearly Laver on clay. Federer on clay is definitely not the winner though.

How can indoor be a surface? Indoor refers to a ****ing roof not what you play on. Look at the ATP site head 2 heads. Do you see indoor listed? No. Because it isn't a surface that you play on. I guess for idiots like yourself they'll need to create a new category should the AO or Wimbledon be played with a closed roof.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 04:16 PM
It seems Federer fans consider indoors not a surface when they dont want Nadal leading their outdoor hard court head to head 4-1, but count indoors as a surface when it suits their argument.

Anyway if indoors is not a surface probably Nadal on hard courts. If it is then clearly Laver on clay. Federer on clay is definitely not the winner though.

LAWL x 100000

*********s such as yourself came with the idea of an "outdoor" and "indoor" surface, you lier. I'm almost sure Bud was the first one to use outdoor and indoor hard as different surfaces (of course to notice the 4-1 lead on "outdoor" hard over Federer), any stat is good when it hails Nadal and diminishes Federer's greatness.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 04:23 PM
Depends when you ask. In 2005 Nadal was a clay court specialist and everyone said he couldnt win on anything.

Then he just kept winning and winning and winning.

Clearly Nadal is the best as he is not a clay purr specialist . He has an astounding 6 FO's and the greatest winning streak ever on clay.
Clearly hard courts are his worst surface as well as grass.

Even so Nadal has won the USO ,AO an Wimbledon twice. He is the best on his worst surfaces by far.

No one else can claim a grand slam on a surface they hate.

LOLWUT, does Nadal actually have his best surface since grass AND hard are obviously his worst :D?

timnz
06-14-2011, 05:39 PM
I'd put Lendl on grass as second only to federer on clay, in terms of strength on weakest surface. Lendl made at least the semis of Wimbledon 7 times including making 2 finals. also one Australian open final on grass.

sunnyIce
06-14-2011, 05:41 PM
why do we classify surfaces based on material? (other than it being traditional).

why not classify surfaces based on speed?

1. Slow / Slow Medium - courts from Jan to end of May
2. Medium - June/July
3. Medium Fast / Fast - Aug to Dec.


HEck, we can take this further and classify by "conditions of play". I will let somebody else do that.

Pwned
06-14-2011, 05:42 PM
why do we classify surfaces based on material? (other than it being traditional).

why not classify surfaces based on speed?

1. Slow / Slow Medium - courts from Jan to end of May
2. Medium - June/July
3. Medium Fast / Fast - Aug to Dec.


HEck, we can take this further and classify by "conditions of play". I will let somebody else do that.

Because everything is medium or slower now.

NadalAgassi
06-14-2011, 05:47 PM
How can indoor be a surface? Indoor refers to a ****ing roof not what you play on. Look at the ATP site head 2 heads. Do you see indoor listed? No. Because it isn't a surface that you play on. I guess for idiots like yourself they'll need to create a new category should the AO or Wimbledon be played with a closed roof.

Take a look at this shall genius:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tournaments/Event-Calendar.aspx

As you can see tournaments are either listed just as hard or indoor hard, showing the ATP noting the distinction between the two. So at the very least one can definitely argue indoors as a seperate surface. Do you really think it is coincidence Federer is 1-4 vs Nadal on outdoor hard courts and barely won in the only victory, yet indoors is the only surface he has had an easy time with Nadal so far.

Anyway if as you indoors is not a surface then fine, Nadal on hard courts (which is now his worst surface) is better than anyone else on their worst surface then. U.S Open, Australian Open, and Olympic winner all on hard courts, tons of Masters titles and finals, many wins over Federer and everyone else on the surface.

sunnyIce
06-14-2011, 05:50 PM
Because everything is medium or slower now.

ATP should just officially categorize the season into:

Slow courts

Medium courts

Fast courts


that wud be cool.

Tammo
06-14-2011, 05:50 PM
What about Roddick on clay? I think his was the worst.

Pwned
06-14-2011, 05:55 PM
Take a look at this shall genius:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tournaments/Event-Calendar.aspx

As you can see tournaments are either listed just as hard or indoor hard, showing the ATP noting the distinction between the two. So at the very least one can definitely argue indoors as a seperate surface. Do you really think it is coincidence Federer is 1-4 vs Nadal on outdoor hard courts and barely won in the only victory, yet indoors is the only surface he has had an easy time with Nadal so far.

Anyway if as you indoors is not a surface then fine, Nadal on hard courts (which is now his worst surface) is better than anyone else on their worst surface then. U.S Open, Australian Open, and Olympic winner all on hard courts, tons of Masters titles and finals, many wins over Federer and everyone else on the surface.

So the AO with roof closed is a different surface than open? So Laver doesn't have a true Grand Slam? He never won on indoor hard or indoor grass?!?!!?

Yes it's a coincidence. Given the lack of fast courts these days the speed of indoor courts is not a factor, WTF especially. Indoor used to refer to super fast carpet courts which aren't played on anymore. A hardcourt is a hardcourt regardless of whether or not there is a roof overhead.

NadalAgassi
06-14-2011, 06:05 PM
Of course the AO with roof closed would make it totally different. For instance at the 88 Australian Open final between Graf and Evert they closed the roof and Evert afterwords was furious and blamed the loss on the closed roof, saying the quicker condidtions favored Graf game and threw her totally out of her rythym she had that tournament.

Pwned
06-14-2011, 06:06 PM
Of course the AO with roof closed would make it totally different. For instance at the 88 Australian Open final between Graf and Evert they closed the roof and Evert afterwords was furious and blamed the loss on the closed roof, saying the quicker condidtions favored Graf game and threw her totally out of her rythym she had that tournament.

Bummer for Laver.

NadalAgassi
06-14-2011, 06:28 PM
Those saying a slam has to be won on every surface would discount Laver's slam anyway since there were no hard court slam surfaces of any kind back then, so it makes no difference.

tennis_pro
06-14-2011, 06:29 PM
Take a look at this shall genius:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tournaments/Event-Calendar.aspx

As you can see tournaments are either listed just as hard or indoor hard, showing the ATP noting the distinction between the two. So at the very least one can definitely argue indoors as a seperate surface. Do you really think it is coincidence Federer is 1-4 vs Nadal on outdoor hard courts and barely won in the only victory, yet indoors is the only surface he has had an easy time with Nadal so far.

Anyway if as you indoors is not a surface then fine, Nadal on hard courts (which is now his worst surface) is better than anyone else on their worst surface then. U.S Open, Australian Open, and Olympic winner all on hard courts, tons of Masters titles and finals, many wins over Federer and everyone else on the surface.

http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheBMLRB2XHESBKYXZ5ZGVUA28=/imgNikolay%20Davydenko4.jpg

Jchurch
06-14-2011, 06:58 PM
Take a look at this shall genius:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tournaments/Event-Calendar.aspx

As you can see tournaments are either listed just as hard or indoor hard, showing the ATP noting the distinction between the two. So at the very least one can definitely argue indoors as a seperate surface. Do you really think it is coincidence Federer is 1-4 vs Nadal on outdoor hard courts and barely won in the only victory, yet indoors is the only surface he has had an easy time with Nadal so far.

Anyway if as you indoors is not a surface then fine, Nadal on hard courts (which is now his worst surface) is better than anyone else on their worst surface then. U.S Open, Australian Open, and Olympic winner all on hard courts, tons of Masters titles and finals, many wins over Federer and everyone else on the surface.

No matter the way that you slice it..... Federer on Clay > Nadal on Roof Closed Indoor Hard of Fast but not Super Fast Nature.

I think I nailed down all your criteria and made the surface that Nadal is "Least Best" on accurate. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, if Nadal has many wins over Federer and everyone else on this surface, how come he hasn't been to more than one final at the AO and USO?

TheNatural
06-15-2011, 12:16 PM
McEnroe is the obvious choice. He was abysmal on clay. Nadal has multiple hardcourt master's, a USO and an AO so he can't be it.

Nadal has achieved more on hardcourt than Federer did on clay.

what happened to that thread that you began ..it was a great thread but it suddenly vanished!:confused:

Nadalfan89
06-15-2011, 12:40 PM
what happened to that thread that you began ..it was a great thread but it suddenly vanished!:confused:

Mods delete all my threads for no reason. I think they have a policy of only allowing me to post, and not to start threads.

TheNatural
06-15-2011, 01:09 PM
Mods delete all my threads for no reason. I think they have a policy of only allowing me to post, and not to start threads.

I see. Wouldn't thay have informed you if that was a policy.. Otherwise we all post in a great thread then BOOM its suddenly gone, which is dissapointing for you and everyoen else who posted. :confused:

tenniselbow1
06-15-2011, 01:25 PM
How in your right mind do you feel Rafa is a better hard court player than Federer is on clay?

You do not want me to pull out numbers to make you people look stupid, trust me. If you have no idea what your talking about, please refrain from commenting.

Magnus
06-15-2011, 01:31 PM
Erase Nadal, and Fed has like 3-5 FO titles. Not so bad for a weak surface.

Magnus
06-15-2011, 01:33 PM
McEnroe is the obvious choice. He was abysmal on clay. Nadal has multiple hardcourt master's, a USO and an AO so he can't be it.

Nadal has achieved more on hardcourt than Federer did on clay.

Yeah, sure Nadal achieved more? How many MS and slams are on HC? A lot. Good, now how many on clay? About a half. And that's not even including indoors. Fed is A LOT better on clay than Nadal is on indoors.

Jchurch
06-15-2011, 01:37 PM
How in your right mind do you feel Rafa is a better hard court player than Federer is on clay?

You do not want me to pull out numbers to make you people look stupid, trust me. If you have no idea what your talking about, please refrain from commenting.

Please pull out the numbers.

Mainad
06-15-2011, 01:48 PM
How in your right mind do you feel Rafa is a better hard court player than Federer is on clay?

Well,Rafa has 11 hard court titles including 2 Grand Slams.
Federer has 9 clay court titles including 1 Grand Slam.

Conclusion: Rafa is better on hard courts than Federer is on clay.

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 01:54 PM
Well,Rafa has 15 hard court titles including 2 Grand Slams.
Federer has 9 clay court titles including 1 Grand Slam.

Conclusion: Rafa is better on hard courts than Federer is on clay.

Nope. Federer to win 2 French Opens would need to win it in 2 years. You don't have to wait a full year to have another chance of winning a Slam on hard court tho, as we have both AO and USO played in 1 season. Nadal had twice as many chances to collect the titles he did win. It's not always black and white.

Nadalfan89
06-15-2011, 02:42 PM
"Indoors" is not a surface. What you're all referring to is hard court.

Jchurch
06-15-2011, 02:53 PM
Erase Nadal, and Fed has like 3-5 FO titles. Not so bad for a weak surface.

Conversely, if you erase Federer, Nadal gains a Miami and WTF. No more Majors though

NadalAgassi
06-15-2011, 03:04 PM
Erase Nadal, and Fed has like 3-5 FO titles. Not so bad for a weak surface.

Erase Nadal and the clay court field is the worst in history by a HUGE margin. It might be the worst in history even with Nadal. Federer indeed would be winning French Opens by beating such clay superstars as Mariano Puerta, Ivan Ljubicic, Nikolay Davydenko, and Gael Monfils in the finals.

Hard courts is the only field that has any quality and depth in the Federer-Nadal which speaks highly to both Federer in his ability to dominate and win so many hard court slams and Nadal in his ability to do so well vs such a strong field of hard courters despite beign better on clay and grass.

Clay and grass in the Federer-Nadal era is mostly a scanenger ground full of nobodies and mugs on those surfaces and Federer and Nadal both have harvested on the available feast.

Rock Strongo
06-15-2011, 03:14 PM
Stop turning every thread into a Nadal/Federer one...

Lendl and grass.

NadalAgassi
06-15-2011, 03:20 PM
I wouldnt say Lendl on grass. Lendl couldnt win a grass court slam even at the Australian which he played 4 times from 83-87 and often had a depleted field. He had the advantage of playing 2 grass slams a year in many of his prime years and still couldnt win one. He couldnt even beat guys like Pat Cash and Mats Wilander in the finals he played to win grass court slams, and lost to much weaker people then that also. Yeah he lost sometimes to Becker or Edberg in the semis or finals, but nearly all the people we talk about faced people that good or better on their worst surfaces.

Federer on clay, Nadal on hard courts, Agassi on clay, are all much better than Lendl on grass. Connors on clay also, he did win the U.S Open in 76 on green clay and was 3 times a row a finalist. He missed his best potential years at the French.

JeMar
06-15-2011, 03:21 PM
"Indoors" is not a surface. What you're all referring to is hard court.

Listen to this man.

Nadalfan89
06-15-2011, 03:23 PM
Conversely, if you erase Federer, Nadal gains a Miami and WTF. No more Majors though

Actually, Nadal would gain two Wimbledons.

zagor
06-15-2011, 03:24 PM
Actually, Nadal would gain two Wimbledons.

Grass is Nadal's 2nd best surface,not his worst.

NadalAgassi
06-15-2011, 03:33 PM
This eliminating Nadal nonsense is BS. If you eliminate Navratilova then Evert probably wins 30 majors, should she be crowned the undisputed GOAT? She would have won 8 Wimbledons without Navratilova (she lost to her 5 times in the finals), is she the grass court GOAT? No the fact that she did so often lose to Navratilova only proves her inferior to Navratilova, Graf, and Court to most, while being far inferior to Navratilova, Graf, Court, King, Lenglen, Willis, Venus, or Serena on grass, it doesnt elevate her. Likewise Vilas getting destroyed by Borg, especialy on clay, does not in anyway elevate him. Nor does Agassi losing so often to Sampras at the U.S Open make him the uncrowned decoturf GOAT.

Anyway Federer fans are so steadfast Federer is way superior, thus shouldnt have to. Federer in his prime lost to a grandpa Kuerten at the French in 2004 who was playing on a 70 year old hip (or did he even have a hip anymore, lol). Weeks before dominating Wimbledon one year he lost in straight sets to Luis Horna. He was getting killed by David Nalbandian one year in the semis before Nalbandian got injured. And in his lone year of winning the French he was 5 points from a straight sets loss to 31 year old Tommy Haas. He doesnt deserve more than 1 or 2 French Opens, let alone 4 or 5. Thank goodness Nadal was there to prevent that inaccurate reflection of Federer's excellent but clearly less than historic clay court abilities.

tenniselbow1
06-15-2011, 04:04 PM
To start with Roger is 1/10 of a percentage point from being the leader for both career and in the slams on grass and hard courts. He only trails lendl as the career hard court leader. He clearly is the leader on 2/3 surfaces. He's currently number 7 on the slam winning percentage at the FO. These stats are taking into account Roger is 3 years past his best in 2004-2007. Rafa's peak started in 2008, that gives him 1-2 more years at his best. Its possible he's now past that stage as well, when his numbers will sharpley decline. Also a factor is Roger far fewer attempts for Roger were given to him to prove himself at this best on clay unlike Rafa. This is evident in each of their results at the slams, where Roger clearly goes farther a higher percentage of the time. Lastly Rafa's poor performance indoor clearly a hard court surface is clearly a big factor here. Every top GOAT candidate has beaten their respected peers (the top 8 players) on this surface, until Rafa wins this he can't even be considered in my opinion.

Roger on clay vs Rafa on a hard court in the Slams:

81.4(Rafa hard court) vs 80.33 (Fed) are the numbers so far on the ATP site and Wiki for slam winning percentage. Highly misleading i'll tell you why.

Fed has 12 losses at the French Open: 5 have been to Rafa/ 7 by others. Since his first slam (his prime at 22) he's lost 7 times over 8 years, 5 to rafa The CLAY GOAT. To reference 'prime years' look up Djokovic who's won 7/10 of his last meetings against Rafa since he turned 22.

Rafa has 13 losses on hard court slams: None have been to Federer. He has 2 wins, 1 win against Fed. All of his losses have been to other players other than Fed. 5 losses/ 7 attempts after turning 22 in 2008 what many say was the start of his prime years. These 5 recent losses in just over 3 years, have been to 4 players now and counting. He clearly can't beat the field on a hard court as Fed can on clay.

So far @the slams:

Fed: 1 title plus 4 finals in 13 tries ( Lost to 3 players/8 attempts as the number 1 or 2 seed at the FO in a span of 7 years)

Rafa: 2 titles plus zero finals in 15 tries ( lost to 7 different players/ 11 atempts as the number 1 or 2 seed in a hard court slam over 7 years)


Pre-prime and after numbers (after they each won a slam)

41/48 85.4 federer on clay
44/53 83.0 rafa on a hard court

Masters series and WTF play
87/114 76.3 Federer on clay
123/165 74.5 Rafa on hard courts

tenniselbow1
06-15-2011, 04:08 PM
To start with Roger is 1/10 of a percentage point from being the leader for both career and in the slams on grass and hard courts. He only trails lendl as the career hard court leader. He clearly is the leader on 2/3 surfaces. He's currently number 7 on the slam winning percentage at the FO. These stats are taking into account Roger is 3 years past his best in 2004-2007. Rafa's peak started in 2008, that gives him 1-2 more years at his best. Its possible he's now past that stage as well, when his numbers will sharpley decline. Also a factor is Roger far fewer attempts for Roger were given to him to prove himself at this best on clay unlike Rafa. This is evident in each of their results at the slams, where Roger clearly goes farther a higher percentage of the time. Lastly Rafa's poor performance indoor clearly a hard court surface is clearly a big factor here. Every top GOAT candidate has beaten their respected peers (the top 8 players) on this surface, until Rafa wins this he can't even be considered in my opinion.

Roger on clay vs Rafa on a hard court in the Slams:

81.4(Rafa hard court) vs 80.33 (Fed) are the numbers so far on the ATP site and Wiki for slam winning percentage. Highly misleading i'll tell you why.

Fed has 12 losses at the French Open: 5 have been to Rafa/ 7 by others. Since his first slam (his prime at 22) he's lost 7 times over 8 years, 5 to rafa The CLAY GOAT. To reference 'prime years' look up Djokovic who's won 7/10 of his last meetings against Rafa since he turned 22.

Rafa has 13 losses on hard court slams: None have been to Federer. He has 2 wins, 1 win against Fed. All of his losses have been to other players other than Fed. 5 losses/ 7 attempts after turning 22 in 2008 what many say was the start of his prime years. These 5 recent losses in just over 3 years, have been to 4 players now and counting. He clearly can't beat the field on a hard court as Fed can on clay.

So far @the slams:

Fed: 1 title plus 4 finals in 13 tries ( Lost to 3 players/8 attempts as the number 1 or 2 seed at the FO in a span of 7 years)

Rafa: 2 titles plus zero finals in 15 tries ( lost to 7 different players/ 11 atempts as the number 1 or 2 seed in a hard court slam over 7 years)


Pre-prime and after numbers (after they each won a slam)

41/48 85.4 federer on clay
44/53 83.0 rafa on a hard court

Masters series and WTF play
87/114 76.3 Federer on clay
123/165 74.5 Rafa on hard courts

egn
06-15-2011, 04:38 PM
Federer and Nadal practically have the same record on each of their worst surfaces, therefore this argument is pointless and they are tied.

I would say the best choice really is Laver on clay...but anyway



Anyway Federer fans are so steadfast Federer is way superior, thus shouldnt have to. Federer in his prime lost to a grandpa Kuerten at the French in 2004 who was playing on a 70 year old hip (or did he even have a hip anymore, lol). Weeks before dominating Wimbledon one year he lost in straight sets to Luis Horna. He was getting killed by David Nalbandian one year in the semis before Nalbandian got injured. And in his lone year of winning the French he was 5 points from a straight sets loss to 31 year old Tommy Haas. He doesnt deserve more than 1 or 2 French Opens, let alone 4 or 5. Thank goodness Nadal was there to prevent that inaccurate reflection of Federer's excellent but clearly less than historic clay court abilities.

You had me on paragraph one and up until the lost to grandpa Kuerten...Now this where it appears you barely watch the sport. I'll agree 2004 Federer was still greatly inconsistent on clay, but Federer was early in his career considered a threat in France and a huge underachiever. Actually going into 2003 he had all his best results on clay (outside of that win against Sampras). Just look at his results he had won Hamburg and been runner up at Rome with wins against guys like Kuerten, Safin, Ferrero etc. Going into both 2002 and 2003 he was expected to make a deep run, he himself just failed to live up to his name. (Huge problem with that crop of players.) In 2002 he had huge hype, he had made the quarters last year, won a clay court master series beating some of the best at the time (Guga, Safin etc.) Not to mention 2002 the clay court scene was in transition. Either way the whole point is when Fed came up nobody was like Fed will never be good on clay at all, there was work that needed to be done but by 2007 I was more shocked he had not won a French and hadn't been able to beat Nadal.

Nadal very similarly to Fed took a while to get consistent and once he did he has proved a lot wrong winning each hardcourt major. Again similar to Fed he started out strong in master series and after time was able to get going at the hardcourts. Just Nadal bloomed much earlier then Fed which is good for him because it is less for lack of a better word wasted time.

Jchurch
06-15-2011, 05:19 PM
Actually, Nadal would gain two Wimbledons.

Post was in response to someone depicting the clay court achievements Federer would have if Nadal didn't exist. I guess Federer would have another Wimbledon and AO, but that wasn't a factor in my response.

egn
06-15-2011, 05:20 PM
I wouldnt say Lendl on grass. Lendl couldnt win a grass court slam even at the Australian which he played 4 times from 83-87 and often had a depleted field. He had the advantage of playing 2 grass slams a year in many of his prime years and still couldnt win one. He couldnt even beat guys like Pat Cash and Mats Wilander in the finals he played to win grass court slams, and lost to much weaker people then that also. Yeah he lost sometimes to Becker or Edberg in the semis or finals, but nearly all the people we talk about faced people that good or better on their worst surfaces.

Federer on clay, Nadal on hard courts, Agassi on clay, are all much better than Lendl on grass. Connors on clay also, he did win the U.S Open in 76 on green clay and was 3 times a row a finalist. He missed his best potential years at the French.

Few things When Lendl played the grass Aussie it's field was not depleted..

In 1983 McEnroe (wimbledon champ) was there and lost to the same man Lendl lost to Wilander. Wilander is underrated on grass. Just compare the seeds that year most of the top grass name guys were at both. Both wimbledon finalists played at the aussie and vice versa and oddly enough at wimbledon mcenroe lost in the semis and lewis in the third round while at wimbledon lendl lost in the semis and wilander in the third round...hmm interesting. I guess in 84 you could make the claim that McEnroe was missing but with guys like Curren, Cash, Edberg, Becker etc.

The two grass courts also played a bit differently. The Aussie grass court had a different bounce and the ball didn't skid, however that being said it was still a quick surface.

You say Cash and Wilander are weak but that is absurd not going into that.

Besides what most people neglect about the 80s is Lendl had to change his game completely on grass to a style that involved a ton of serve and volley something he was not comfortable with at all, but he did quite a damn good job. Nowadays little game changed needs to be made for Federer or Nadal when going from surface to surface.

borg number one
06-15-2011, 05:27 PM
I'd say Borg on hard courts or Laver on clay. As for Federer, his results at the FO have been extremely good, but it's not a given that he would have more FO titles were it not for Nadal. Even if he wasn't facing Nadal in a final, he would have to have beaten some other opponent that had reached a FO final. So, for all those that say we can't give out "unearned" majors, if you say that Federer would have 3-5 FO titles without Nadal, that's what you are doing. I think if Nadal was not there he would have likely won some FO titles, but it's not a given. Same with Nadal, you can't automatically tack on Wimbledon titles if you removed Federer from the equation. Beating a guy that has reached the final of a major is no mean feat, even if it's another top 5 or top 10 player.

Tammo
06-15-2011, 05:29 PM
Why does every one ignore Roddick on clay, seriously he is the WORST.

Andres
06-15-2011, 05:44 PM
Why does every one ignore Roddick on clay, seriously he is the WORST.
Because the title is 'Best on their worst surface'. Why should Roddick be mentioned?

Tammo
06-15-2011, 05:52 PM
Because the title is 'Best on their worst surface'. Why should Roddick be mentioned?

1 USO, 4 AO Semis, 3 Wimbledon finals, and 8 years in a row he has qualified for the YEC.

Nadalfan89
06-15-2011, 05:56 PM
1 USO, 4 AO Semis, 3 Wimbledon finals, and 8 years in a row he has qualified for the YEC.

You just proved yourself wrong. Which one of those accomplishments you mentioned take place on clay?

Andres
06-15-2011, 06:01 PM
1 USO, 4 AO Semis, 3 Wimbledon finals, and 8 years in a row he has qualified for the YEC.

You just proved yourself wrong. Which one of those accomplishments you mentioned take place on clay?
^^ This.

10 chars

Tammo
06-15-2011, 06:14 PM
You just proved yourself wrong. Which one of those accomplishments you mentioned take place on clay?

Exactly, that is why Roddick is a good player on hard and grass but terrible on clay.

Tammo
06-15-2011, 06:15 PM
^^ This.

10 chars

What does that mean?

Manus Domini
06-15-2011, 06:18 PM
Edberg on clay
Federer on clay
Nadal on clay
Henin on grass

Pwned
06-15-2011, 06:22 PM
Exactly, that is why Roddick is a good player on hard and grass but terrible on clay.

Ugh. You don't understand this thread. Roddick is terrible on his worst surface - clay, which is why no one has mentioned him in this thread. This thread is mentioning those players who perform well on what is considered their worst surface.

Andres
06-15-2011, 06:23 PM
Exactly, that is why Roddick is a good player on hard and grass but terrible on clay.
But... but.... aren't you following the thread?

We have to name the BEST player on his worst surface.
Roddick is BAD on his worst surface, so he shouldn't be mentioned.

NadalAgassi
06-15-2011, 06:26 PM
Federer and Nadal practically have the same record on each of their worst surfaces, therefore this argument is pointless and they are tied.

I would say the best choice really is Laver on clay...but anyway




You had me on paragraph one and up until the lost to grandpa Kuerten...Now this where it appears you barely watch the sport. I'll agree 2004 Federer was still greatly inconsistent on clay, but Federer was early in his career considered a threat in France and a huge underachiever. Actually going into 2003 he had all his best results on clay (outside of that win against Sampras). Just look at his results he had won Hamburg and been runner up at Rome with wins against guys like Kuerten, Safin, Ferrero etc. Going into both 2002 and 2003 he was expected to make a deep run, he himself just failed to live up to his name. (Huge problem with that crop of players.) In 2002 he had huge hype, he had made the quarters last year, won a clay court master series beating some of the best at the time (Guga, Safin etc.) Not to mention 2002 the clay court scene was in transition. Either way the whole point is when Fed came up nobody was like Fed will never be good on clay at all, there was work that needed to be done but by 2007 I was more shocked he had not won a French and hadn't been able to beat Nadal.

Nadal very similarly to Fed took a while to get consistent and once he did he has proved a lot wrong winning each hardcourt major. Again similar to Fed he started out strong in master series and after time was able to get going at the hardcourts. Just Nadal bloomed much earlier then Fed which is good for him because it is less for lack of a better word wasted time.

That is the whole point. Federer was very good on clay as early as 2002. Winning Masters, making Masters final, made his first slam quarters, made the French quarters as early as 2001. So there is no excuse for how poorly he did at the French from 2002-2004. And it obviously wasnt related to Nadal. Nadal gets no leighway for his dissapointing hard court slam results from 2005-early 2008 aged 18-21, so an adult Federer should not have those particular poor underachieving showings at the French just dismissed either.

NadalAgassi
06-15-2011, 06:29 PM
I'd say Borg on hard courts or Laver on clay. As for Federer, his results at the FO have been extremely good, but it's not a given that he would have more FO titles were it not for Nadal. Even if he wasn't facing Nadal in a final, he would have to have beaten some other opponent that had reached a FO final. So, for all those that say we can't give out "unearned" majors, if you say that Federer would have 3-5 FO titles without Nadal, that's what you are doing. I think if Nadal was not there he would have likely won some FO titles, but it's not a given. Same with Nadal, you can't automatically tack on Wimbledon titles if you removed Federer from the equation. Beating a guy that has reached the final of a major is no mean feat, even if it's another top 5 or top 10 player.

By that logic what is the basis for rating Borg on hard courts top. I know there wasnt 2 hard court slams like today but he never won the U.S Open (and given that he didnt even win it on green clay from 75-77 we can safely assume he wasnt winning it on hard courts which he is much worse on than clay any of those years either). Obviously losing to Connors and McEnroe cant matter since as you yourself siad you cant automatically take on extra titles because you lost to so and so.

borg number one
06-15-2011, 06:36 PM
By that logic what is the basis for rating Borg on hard courts top. I know there wasnt 2 hard court slams like today but he never won the U.S Open (and given that he didnt even win it on green clay from 75-77 we can safely assume he wasnt winning it on hard courts which he is much worse on than clay any of those years either). Obviously losing to Connors and McEnroe cant matter since as you yourself siad you cant automatically take on extra titles because you lost to so and so.

He played in 4 hard court majors and made the finals of three of them. He also won about 23 indoor titles and he won 6 hard court titles. Most of those indoor titles were on indoor carpet which was very fast, but he won a indoor hard court title too. So make that seven hard court titles (1 indoors) and 22 indoor titles on carpet. So, the guy was extremely tough on every surface, including hard courts and indoor courts.

Tammo
06-15-2011, 06:38 PM
Ugh. You don't understand this thread. Roddick is terrible on his worst surface - clay, which is why no one has mentioned him in this thread. This thread is mentioning those players who perform well on what is considered their worst surface.

oh, :confused: I thought it meant the best players on their worst surface.:oops:

Pwned
06-15-2011, 06:41 PM
oh, :confused: I thought it meant the best players on their worst surface.:oops:

It's not a problem. And I can see the confusion.

Tammo
06-15-2011, 06:46 PM
oh well "Too err is to human"

Manus Domini
06-15-2011, 07:28 PM
oh well "Too err is to human"

to err is human

fed_rulz
06-15-2011, 07:47 PM
I'd say Borg on hard courts or Laver on clay. As for Federer, his results at the FO have been extremely good, but it's not a given that he would have more FO titles were it not for Nadal. Even if he wasn't facing Nadal in a final, he would have to have beaten some other opponent that had reached a FO final. So, for all those that say we can't give out "unearned" majors, if you say that Federer would have 3-5 FO titles without Nadal, that's what you are doing. I think if Nadal was not there he would have likely won some FO titles, but it's not a given. Same with Nadal, you can't automatically tack on Wimbledon titles if you removed Federer from the equation. Beating a guy that has reached the final of a major is no mean feat, even if it's another top 5 or top 10 player.
well, actually it is pretty much a given. do you want to nominate Borg on HC? how many HC titles did he win? how does it compare to Federer's CC titles?

fed_rulz
06-15-2011, 07:48 PM
He played in 4 hard court majors and made the finals of three of them. He also won about 23 indoor titles and he won 6 hard court titles. Most of those indoor titles were on indoor carpet which was very fast, but he won a indoor hard court title too. So make that seven hard court titles (1 indoors) and 22 indoor titles on carpet. So, the guy was extremely tough on every surface, including hard courts and indoor courts.

so clearly HC is his worst surface. Obviously, Federer' record in clay majors is better?

borg number one
06-15-2011, 07:51 PM
so clearly HC is his worst surface. Obviously, Federer' record in clay majors is better?

Well, you have 4 majors played for Borg and what 13 majors played on clay by Federer. More total wins, yes, 1 major for Federer out of 13 ('99-11). So, "better record" is very debatable, because for a record you have to look at both wins and losses.

gold soundz
06-15-2011, 07:52 PM
The answer to this question is obvious. Nadal on hard court. He has two slams and numerous titles (including masters titles). This beats Federer on clay for sure. Plus he's younger than Federer.

NadalAgassi
06-15-2011, 08:07 PM
He played in 4 hard court majors and made the finals of three of them. He also won about 23 indoor titles and he won 6 hard court titles. Most of those indoor titles were on indoor carpet which was very fast, but he won a indoor hard court title too. So make that seven hard court titles (1 indoors) and 22 indoor titles on carpet. So, the guy was extremely tough on every surface, including hard courts and indoor courts.

It was his choice to play in only 4 hard court majors by retiring though. With 1 hard court major annually he had as much chance as the clay or 88 and beyond grass worst surface players to win a big title on it and failed. Obviously he was still a very good hard court player but he cant be rated as better over people who actually won a major title on their worst surface IMO. And neither can Lendl on grass.

NadalAgassi
06-15-2011, 08:09 PM
Well, you have 4 majors played for Borg and what 13 majors played on clay by Federer. More total wins, yes, 1 major for Federer out of 13 ('99-11). So, "better record" is very debatable, because for a record you have to look at both wins and losses.

It already a certainty Borg wouldnt have won the U.S Open on hard courts from 75-77 when he couldnt even win it on clay any of those (nor before 75 when he would have been even less a threat to). In 77 he was injured, but in 75 and 76 he lost to Connors on green clay. I am sure you will concede if he lost to Connors on any type of clay, he obviously would have been destroyed in those same two matches if it were on decoturf instead, if he even still made it far enough to play Connors that is. That only 4 majors played on hard courts is a deceiving stat. He still had his 4 ultimate peak years to play the U.S Open while Federer had about 6 close to prime years at the French, not that big a difference. And like I said it was his choice to retire and his choice to have fewer chances.

borg number one
06-15-2011, 08:23 PM
It already a certainty Borg wouldnt have won the U.S Open on hard courts from 75-77 when he couldnt even win it on clay any of those (nor before 75 when he would have been even less a threat to). In 77 he was injured, but in 75 and 76 he lost to Connors on green clay. I am sure you will concede if he lost to Connors on any type of clay, he obviously would have been destroyed in those same two matches if it were on decoturf instead, if he even still made it far enough to play Connors that is. That only 4 majors played on hard courts is a deceiving stat. He still had his 4 ultimate peak years to play the U.S Open while Federer had about 6 close to prime years at the French, not that big a difference. And like I said it was his choice to retire and his choice to have fewer chances.

No, not at all. There's very little in tennis that is a certainty. I do think that the rivalry with Connors really started changing in '77 when Borg turned it around on Connors big time. In the '78 US Open final he had an injury (painkiller in the thumb before the match which made him lose feeling throughout the right hand), but no excuse a loss is a loss. After the match he said nothing about it really, just that "Jimmy played very well". He had beaten Connors badly in the W final and really from 1978-1981 he dominated Connors. For example, here's Borg vs. Connors in the '81 SF. Borg played those 4 US Open finals from age 22-25. This is Borg in his next to last US Open match ever, on his worst surface. He would receive a death threat called in right after this match strangely enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOUb8m6-lH0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR_aYm-PyfA&feature=related (thanks Borgforever)

zachattack1996
06-15-2011, 08:30 PM
I think some people are misunderstanding the question. The OP is asking who is the best player on their corresponding worst surface.

did anyone read this post?

Vortex Tour 95
06-25-2011, 04:50 AM
Is Nadals worst surface grass?

Is Nadal a better grass court player than Federer is a clay court player?

NadalAgassi
06-25-2011, 11:04 AM
No, not at all. There's very little in tennis that is a certainty. I do think that the rivalry with Connors really started changing in '77 when Borg turned it around on Connors big time. In the '78 US Open final he had an injury (painkiller in the thumb before the match which made him lose feeling throughout the right hand), but no excuse a loss is a loss. After the match he said nothing about it really, just that "Jimmy played very well". He had beaten Connors badly in the W final and really from 1978-1981 he dominated Connors. For example, here's Borg vs. Connors in the '81 SF. Borg played those 4 US Open finals from age 22-25. This is Borg in his next to last US Open match ever, on his worst surface. He would receive a death threat called in right after this match strangely enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOUb8m6-lH0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR_aYm-PyfA&feature=related (thanks Borgforever)

What do the matches you speak of have to do with the hypothetical 74-77 U.S Opens had they been played on hard courts rather than grass or clay however. We know Borg did not win the U.S Open on hard courts from 78 onwards since he played them and didnt, then retired. I am not saying he never seemed to have a decent chance to do so, or didnt have the ability to possibly do so, but as it was he didnt in any of those years (his best years).

How can you remotedly argue he might have won in 75 and 76 on hard courts when he couldnt even eat Connors on CLAY those same 2 years. So he would possibly win the exact same matches on the exact same days with Connors on hard courts he played to him and lost on clay (even Har Tru clay). That seems unrealistic and all but impossible. And 77 he was injured.

So there is nothing that suggests Connors would have won a U.S Open on hard courts even had it been played on hard courts every year. Hard courts is clearly his worst surface so any year it is played on another one benefits him unless he lost to some clay specialist (say Panatta) there which never happened, and he still didnt win it. Now he didnt have 2 chances to play slams on hard courts like todays players. I will give you that much.

timnz
07-05-2011, 10:52 PM
It already a certainty Borg wouldnt have won the U.S Open on hard courts from 75-77 when he couldnt even win it on clay any of those (nor before 75 when he would have been even less a threat to). In 77 he was injured, but in 75 and 76 he lost to Connors on green clay. I am sure you will concede if he lost to Connors on any type of clay, he obviously would have been destroyed in those same two matches if it were on decoturf instead, if he even still made it far enough to play Connors that is. That only 4 majors played on hard courts is a deceiving stat. He still had his 4 ultimate peak years to play the U.S Open while Federer had about 6 close to prime years at the French, not that big a difference. And like I said it was his choice to retire and his choice to have fewer chances.

I think 1977 if he was uninjured he could have won the us open If it had been played on hard court. But I think he was injured