View Full Version : If Roger wins, is he the KING of Clay?

06-10-2006, 02:28 PM
I just got a chuckle from this.. it takes a lot more than 1 lucky win to be king.. A 59 win streak on clay proves something! Roger winning one Clay title but losing Rome an Monte Carlo does not make him a king.

06-10-2006, 02:31 PM
I disagree. If he did win he would be KING because he was in the finals of the other two Masters events on clay, and had match point in the last one. So that puts them almost tied for the year, Monte Carlo to Nadal, French Open to Federer, Roma final almost a tie but to Nadal, which the French being clearly the biggest I would go to Federer for the year if he won.

06-10-2006, 02:32 PM
No matter the outcome of this match, Juan Carlos Ferrero is still the King of Clay.

06-10-2006, 03:47 PM
Fed is not the king of clay. He's an awesome player, but if you compare him to Nadal you can see how Fed's style really does not work that well on clay.

06-10-2006, 03:53 PM
Nadal will still be the king. But not by much.

And you must know zero about tennis to think that Federer's game doesn't translate well to clay. Uh...he's been to the finals of every single claycourt event he's played in this year. He's the second best claycourter in the world, and he's very close to Nadal. In fact, he wins his matches on clay a lot easier than Nadal, so you could argue that he's even better than Nadal on clay, but his game doesn't match up against Nadal's as well.

pound cat
06-10-2006, 03:57 PM
Nadal will still be the King of Clay and Federer will be the Queen of Clay?

Kid Carlos
06-10-2006, 04:04 PM
I totally agree with superman1, Federer wins his matches much easier and is a great clay court player, hes won Hamburg 3 times, finals of Monte Carlo, 2 Finals in Rome, Final in the French. Perhaps saying Justin Gimelstob game doesnt work on clay is a better way to go. Hes a better clay courter than Moya and Ferrero and even Coria, no doubt.

06-10-2006, 04:09 PM
MasterTS, dont u have anything else to discuss??
seems everything u post is pro Nadal....
anyway i hope Roger wins just to annoy u...
and i hope there's a fight over Rafael taking too long
in between points.

06-10-2006, 04:22 PM
The French Open title is immeasurably more important than a silly winning streak. If Federer wins tomorrow, then he has had a better clay-court season than Nadal -- no doubt about that. Even so, I think in that event we can still dub these two the "co-kings" of clay, since it's the gap between them and everyone else that is most striking.

The tennis guy
06-10-2006, 04:30 PM
Absolutely, he would be king of clay in 2006 if he wins tomorrow. Majority of the 59 match win streak came from last year.

06-10-2006, 04:32 PM
If Federer wins they yes he is the King of Clay. As said before he will of had the better clay court season, and will of ended Nadals run.

When Gaudio beat Coria in 2004 he was thought of as the King of Clay so I don't think there will be much debate in calling Federer the King of Clay.

06-10-2006, 04:51 PM
I just got a chuckle from this.. it takes a lot more than 1 lucky win to be king..

If Federer wins the 06 French, with him and Nadal being 100% healthy at the begining of the final, please explain me what would luck have to do with that win? :confused:

slice bh compliment
06-10-2006, 05:06 PM
King of clay, huh? It's is neither here nor there. Depends on how you look at it, since the clay court season is, well, more than just one season. There are mini clay court swings in South America as well as Europe, and they do not necessarily lead up to RG.
That's for people who look at it like mathmeticians. For those of us who just see it as the German Open, the Italian Open and Roland, I think any type of tie goes to the RG champion.

One players' perspective on it...
I think it was 1990 that saw Muster win the Italian Open. He beat Gomez in the Quarters or semis. If I recall, it was a brutal 3 set loss for the old guy (GoGo) after which Muster acted pretty fly (for an Austrian guy). Gomez succinctly gave what I think is the veteran PLAYERS' perspective with something like, 'nobody gives his everything in Rome. You give everything in Paris.' He naturally avenged the loss to Muster in the semis, then went on to upset some dude with pink spandex clothing and sunglasses that Sunday in the final.

Oh, and I think Nadal is the best on clay period. But if Fedi manages to sneak a win tomorrow:
from Spanish fans, he will draw ire. The rest of us shall call him 'Sire'.

06-10-2006, 05:06 PM
I voted the way the title of the post was asked. I love Federer, and have already put him in a class of his own. And I really hope he does win the French Open, just once is enough for me. Then I don't have to listen to all these Sampras is the best anymore. I am just counting the titles crossing them off one by one until he passes Sampras.

But as far as the king of Clay goes. Nobody can get this title just by winning the French Open once even the great Federer. There are so many clay tournaments etc. I would have voted for the bottom answer as Nadal has certainly without a doubt claimed the crown for clay courts right now, however I didn't know whether the question was speaking of all time.


06-10-2006, 05:13 PM
I just got a chuckle from this.. it takes a lot more than 1 lucky win to be king..

So you are saying that if he wins the French it will be "1 lucky win?" I couldn't disagree more.

A 59 win streak on clay proves something! Roger winning one Clay title but losing Rome an Monte Carlo does not make him a king.

Again I couldn't disagree more. The 59 match win streak on clay is meaningless. Rome and Monte Carlo are meaningless. The French Open is all that matters. The 59 match win streak and Rome and Monte Carlo are things that would be important to almost anyone on tour, but they are meaningless to Federer and Nadal.

slice bh compliment
06-10-2006, 05:13 PM
King of clay, who knows? But, what I do know ...

... is that if you win Stella Artois AND the US Open in the same year, you are unequivocally and inexorably hailed the "KING OF QUEENS".

06-10-2006, 05:17 PM
who cares about being the king of clay when you are the king of tennis at the moment. this king of clay thing is such BS. i think that its an insult to a player's ability when they are dubbed as a clay-courter or hard-courter. i have no respect for such players. i like players who can bust people's arses on any surface like federer and i hate one dimensional players. go ahead and give the title of king of clay to nadal gift-wrapped and with a bow on top.

06-11-2006, 01:54 PM
So much for the king of clay theory.. Like I said, federer never was and never will be the king of clay.

06-11-2006, 02:25 PM
To superman1,you tell me i am nuts+you say you could argue that fed is better on clay than nadal.

Let me see he wins his matches on clay easier than nadal,really what do they give you for that.

Nadal owns fed on clay pure+simple+if you can debate that you are the one that is completely out of your mind!