At their best, who would win?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Graphiteking, Dec 26, 2012.

  1. ARFED

    ARFED Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    Oh well. Lets look at all the players Fed had to face, shall we? Sampras, Agassi, Murray, Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Krajicek, Moya, Rios, Corretja, Kuerten, Nalbandian, Gaudio, Coria, Del Potro, Gonzalez, Ferrero, Phillipoussis, etc. All Major winners or finalists. Surely as long as Fed keep playing at a high level for a few more years this list will only get larger, just as Rosewall`s did. Imagine when Dimitrov gets to 4 or 5 majors, then we can surely mention him as one of Fed`s great rivals, just like you mention Connors as one of Rosewall`s. Great logic indeed
     
  2. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Thanks for your support. It's always good to know that there are other posters thinking similary to one's own opinion.

    Yes, Rosewall faced extremely strong servers. I would also mention Tanner, Sadri (Muscles won a set off him at 46), Dibley (arguably the fastest service in the 1970s) and Zednik.

    And he sometimes beat several great servers in ONE major. In the 1970 US Open he beat Smith (6-2,6-2,6-2), Newcombe and Roche. In the 1974 Wimbledon he defeated Tanner, Newk and Smith...

    The Little Master beat players from Crawford (born in 1908) till Fitzgerald (born in 1960).

    kiki, a little reprimand: Don't write "Davidoff", you old smoker...
     
  3. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,889
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    No I did not read your whole post. I just said it was a bunch of filler. That doesn't mean I read it, and don't pretend like I'm the stupid one here when you're the one giving Federer 5 majors. He wins 5 at one major alone no matter what era or decade we're in. What you're doing is trolling.
     
  4. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    there is quite a bit of difference , but they are not polar opposites. Regardless, sampras and federer are good enough to win multiple majors on any kind of grass ... that was my point. ..
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2013
  5. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    LOL, what the hell are you on about ?

    You are the one who mentioned regarding players by their origin, not by their talent ....


    I take each case individually.

    federer's best surfaces are medium to fast courts ... just like sampras.

    anger/rigidity ? yeah, that's you after federer surpassed your boy sampras beating almost all his records on the way. :)

    Just that I can make out your agenda very well and can expose it easily ...
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2013
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Oh Dimitrov!!
     
  7. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    True Davidoff is too high quality...
    Forgot mentioning Roscoe
    Great to remind
    Unbelievable he played Crawford, one of the best in the 30 and next Fitzgerald, who played...in the 90's!!!
     
  8. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    Future of tennis and will hopefully become even greater than Stoichkov!
     
  9. hawk eye

    hawk eye Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Messages:
    2,090
    Again, one sentence is enough to show off your lack of reading skills and your rigid black or white thinking again.

    I mentioned that origin is a much more decinding factor to choose for a certain style. You wrongly interpret that as origin is for me the only factor and talent doesn't play any part. It proves one more time that in your mind, it has to be one or the other.
    That's also why your earlier comment about Edberg doesn't make any sense.

    My post was not directed to you but is an answer to Flash O'Groove's post, who believes that clay courters are generally less talented and that's the reason why they become clay courters in the first place. Though an interesting theory, I mention the reasons why it doesn't hold up. It cannot explain that South America and Spain produce largely players with more claycourt oriented style, while these kind of players from Australia and North America are hard to find. In those continents, there's a more fast court oriented tradition that produce(d) largely players with an attacking style of play: serve & volleyers, agressive baseliners.
    In FOG's theory that would mean players from the USA, Canada, and Australia are on average signifantly more talented than players from Spain and from Argentina, Brasil etc. I don't believe many people would subscribe to this view.

    As I already stated, my post was an answer on FOG's post about the level of the 90's playfield, we were debating things on general level. If you take each case individually, that's fine but that comment has no relevance here. I suggest to read the Boris Becker quote again. And I assure you, it's not the only quote (far from that) you can find that says playing style and court preference have a lot to with origin.


    You keep coming back with this Federer/Sampras thing. It doesn't seem to occur to you that other people might be not as obsessed by hat.

    I've said it before, and you give me no option than to say it again: you're delusional. But if that's what makes you happy mate.. Good for you.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2013
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    hawk eye, I agree that claycourters are not less talented. In earlier days they even said that claycourters are more talented because they used more touch shots than the players on fast surfaces.
     
  11. hawk eye

    hawk eye Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Messages:
    2,090
    It is certainly true that, apart from being able to grind and be consistent, claycourters on average use(d) a broader repertoire of shots, like drop shots, different angles, different pace and spin etc.
    On clay it's still a lot harder to blow your opponent of the court with big hitting, but it can be done by certain players (e.g Berdych, DelPorto, and Soderling a couple of years ago).
     
  12. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    no, it doesn't. All he said was in the 90s, the players who succeeded more on grass/fast HC/carpet were more successful even on clay than the claycourters on grass/fast HC/carpet and hence in the generation the former bunch were possibly more talented than the latter.

    I never said that you said origin was the only factor. Just that you were generalizing way too much based on origin .....

    I am speaking in black and white terms ? LOL wut ? I said "I take each case individually"

    my comment about edberg was a perfect contradiction to you generalizing too much based on origin. Too bad you can't deal with it.


    jeez, try harder. Its blatantly obvious from your posts that you hate federer because he's overtaken your hero sampras.

    should I bring up from your posting history the no of digs you've taken at federer ?
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2013
  13. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    let's start with it, shall we ?

    so, giving arguably the most successful and talented player of all time 5 majors in a decade is being generous ??????????


    HA HA HA HA HA

    HA HA HA HA HA

    HA HA HA HA HA

    HA HA HA HA HA

    HA HA HA HA HA

    HA HA HA HA HA

    .......

    then you had reply whatsoever when I totally made a mockery of your comparison of federer with lendl on grass

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7395130&postcount=845

    funnily enough, federer is clearly better than lendl, yet lendl being a baseliner won 8 majors in the 80s and federer would win only 5 majors in the 90s though the 80s was clearly more competitive than the 90s ? hilarious stuff !
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2013
  14. hawk eye

    hawk eye Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Messages:
    2,090
    I show, explain and dispute FOG's theory one more time to you.

    So the 80's and 90's, the most talented players happened to be agressive players. "Clay courters were the best of the rest". Mind you, for 20 years.
    So agressive players were the more talented ones for two decades, and therefore they focussed on fast courts. The focus on fast(er) courts seems logical. So, what's left for the less talented players: the slow courts, especially clay. Smart move, they would have not much of a chance anyway on the fast courts, so they would be crazy to trying to make that their core business, wouldn't they? So yes for all those years the less gifted crop slugged it out on the clay to become the one eyed king, but frequently there was a very nasty gifted one to (almost) spoil the party.

    FOG poses this as a theory, not as an absolute truth. And rightly so: why would the crop of the clay court in all those yeas come from Spain and South America, and not from the USA or Australia. It cannot be the case that for 20 years, Spain and SA countries were less blessed with tennis talent, especially when you consider those countries in delivere(d) more pro players than any other. Anyone who knows at least the basics of statistics would agree.


    I'll give you own quote:

    I think I need to say no more about these comments . Except, in your last post all of a sudden I was generalizing too much'. That’s pretty funny, regarding the quote above.

    Pal, I just can’t deal with the next one. You really made me cry here:

    Your comment on Edberg was indeed a ‘perfect contradiction’... I'll be happy to repeat it:

    Another perfect example that nuances are not exactly your forte.



    Yes, and the funny thing is you said that in a context in which it means nothing at all . FOG and I were talking about a theory, which by definition handles about the big picture. Intelligent people will always acknowledge individual cases that don't fit into the big picture'. Of course I don't 'take each case individually'; i'm not intending to research databases of all the touring pro's of the 80's and 90's.


    I don't hate Federer, how could I? I don't even know the guy personally.
    Sampras is not my 'hero' either. I don't have any hero's, and certainly not in tennis or any other sport.

    But if you've got nothing better to do, be my guest.
     
  15. hawk eye

    hawk eye Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Messages:
    2,090
    To be honest, it looks like you've got no clue where to begin or where to end.

    I’m gonna help you out here, you mean ‘no reply’. See, that’s what happens when you act in such a rage of hostility.
    Just try to keep your composure somehow. You might also be able to think a little clearer.

    I don’t intend to reply every time on statements like ‘Federer is the greatest grass courter of all time’ from Fed fanboys. I didn’t even mention the guy in my first post in this thread, but not naming him was enough for your Pavlov reaction.

    But anyway, then I might just say no he isn’t, and I'll hand some pretty legit argumentation like I already did.

    Then you will disagree of course, wildly accusing me of all kind of rubbish. I could disagree another time in a next post, and then you’re gonna disagree again. Shouting with caps and ‘LOL !!!’, whatever. Meanwhile I'll try to talk some sense into you, like I did before. You oughta give me a least some credit for that, mate.

    Ok then, at your request I will pay some attention to your ‘total mockery’ now:

    The first sentence, like I said, I’m gonna leave it for what it is. I might just say he is not and then you will yell he is; what’s the point of all that?

    The second one, about the uneven bounces and backswings: Federer makes some pretty good shanks from both sides. Lendl’s is far behind is that respect; just to clean a hitter. With a maller headsize and indeed, a bigger backwing.

    BTW, did you ever notice the backswing of Bjorn Borg? FYI, even larger than Lendl’s. Only five Wimbledons and six FO’s (keep in mind clay also doesn’t have even bounces a lot of times.) Now that I think of it, I wonder why you didn’t come up with him. You could always argue Borg was so much more talented and more natural on grass than Lendl. It just might even be the case!. Wasted chance, my friend.


    Yes, hillarious indeed. You know what, I’m not gonna argue with you about ‘the 80’s being clearly more competitive than the 90's'. And then again, you can’t say I didn’t have enough patience with you. Let’s just say ‘total mockery’ mate.
     
  16. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    umm, no one is asking/forcing you to accept that federer is the greatest grass courter of all time. All that I'm saying is its only utter cr*p and hate/bias that could lead one to say he wouldn't even win one wimbledon in the 90s

    @ the bold part : one of the reasons why I did that was you mentioned agassi ahead of federer on fast HC ... the other reason of course is that I'm well aware of your history of posting.

    umm, so you think lendl was just as good/talented as federer on grass ?

    please get me someone sane and remotely unbiased who agrees with that

    yes, borg was much more natural on grass than lendl. duh ! that's plain obvious.

    lendl also used to shank quite a bit. you'd know if you'd watched full matches of him ..

    ever noticed more of federer's shanks are on clay or slow, high bouncing HC ? not on grass or fast HC or indoors ? grass especially is important as that is the point in discussion...the shanks are in major part because of the consistent higher bounces, longer points ... none of which happen on grass ....

    federer is also more aggressive than lendl, takes more chances and puts more action on the ball

    well, of course you aren't. because you know its a no-contest when the likes of kafelnikov can become #1 in the 90s after 7 losses in a row, sampras being #1 after having an year in 98 inferior to #3 djokovic in 2008 , when the 2nd best player of the 90s in agassi is not a major threat in majors for so many years : 93-mid 94 and 96-98 etc etc ..

    contrast to the 80s where you have borg, mac, connors, lendl in the beginning, then wilander, becker, edberg joining in ( though borg left soon ) and a support cast of gerulaitis, vilas, cash, noah, gomez, mecir , curren and then later a young agassi, chang ...
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2013
  17. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    oh really ? for someone who says he doesn't hate federer, you're doing a fine job of showing it by saying that arguably the most successful and talented player of all time would win only 5 majors in an era, that arguably the greatest grass courter of all time wouldn't win wimbledon in the 90s ... brilliant, I must say ... do you even realize or even slightly think its possible that others are not that dumb to buy it ?
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2013
  18. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    FOG never brought in countries into it all . You did.

    All he said was the fast court players were more successful on clay than the clay-courters on the faster surfaces in the 80s and 90s. Hence he said in that phase, it looked like the the former were more talented than the latter.

    now you bring in the countries ..

    tennis player talent doesn't work on the basis of 'stats'.

    US has/had quite a few pro players in the top 100, yet no one who debuted in the past 20 years or so comes close to the talent of federer (from Switzerland ) or djokovic ( from Serbia )

    no one is asking you to research databases of all touring pros ..just when you talk about eras, you need to have some knowledge of the top players at very least. that's what I mean by taking each case individually.
     
  19. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    from the 80s and 90s , amongst the top players :

    players who preferred faster surfaces : connors, mac, curren, sampras, edberg, becker,cash, krajicek, stich,goran, rafter, phillippoussis , martin, pioline

    players who preferred slower surfaces* : vilas, wilander, gomez, noah, bruguera, courier, muster, rios, corretja, kuerten, berasategui,korda, medvedev , moya ..

    players who did well on both , not very skewed : lendl, agassi, chang, mecir, leconte ....

    *now borg was obviously better on clay, but he was pretty strong on grass as well , was pretty good indoors as well and no slouch on fast HC. but was there only in 80, 81 on the full tour , though he was there at the start of the 80s, would classify him mainly as a 70s player .

    I might have missed a name or 2 here and there, ( no one major enough to tilt the balance ) but I'd take the first bunch over the 2nd bunch in terms of talent. ( obviously the first bunch was clearly more successful on their stronger as well as weaker surfaces in comparison )

    doesn't mean I think a claycourter is 'less' talented than a fast court 'specialist' ...
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2013
  20. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    not saying claycourters are less talented in general ... but regarding touch shots :

    mac, edberg, cash , federer etc had/have excellent touch shots and they prefer medium-fast to fast surfaces ..

    someone like nastase was pretty good on clay ,grass as well as indoors.

    of course you have the counter-examples of orantes, rios, coria, bruguera etc who used touch shots very well and preferred slower surfaces ...especially clay ..

    touch shots isn't just dropshots/angled shots/lobs from the baseline, you also have the volleying at the net as well which involves quite a bit of touch
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2013
  21. Pete M.

    Pete M. New User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    so, what do you think about the theory that says clay-courts can level all the players?
     
  22. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Pete M, at least in older times claycourt did not level the players but showed who are the most talented players. Segura,Santana, Pietrangeli, Rosewall, Nastase and Laver emerged as the greatest touch players.
     
  23. joe sch

    joe sch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Hotel CA
    The most important detail for this question is what kind of rackets ? Graphite, Metal, or Wood ?


    If Not graphite
    then Not Roger Federer and Serena Williams

    If wood then
    Laver or Gonzeles
    Suzanne Lenglen or Margaret Court-Smith
     
  24. Pete M.

    Pete M. New User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    So, do you think that theory is still valid for 70's and 80's?

    Btw, are you austrian BobbyOne?
     
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Pete M, It was valid for the 1970s but I'm not sure for the 1980s because in the latter decade players like Lendl and Wilander prevailed.

    Yes, I'm from the small country Austria which was a large country till 1918...
     
  26. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    ...and will again be huge when the BZÖ finally agrees with the FPÖ.
     
  27. Pete M.

    Pete M. New User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    It's a very peculiar country. I lived in Vienna some years ago and I was on vacation in a small town near Salzburg. It was a great time.
     
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Yes, a few years ago these two parties together were the NO.1 in Austria. Times have changed meanwhile. We now have a new party founded by Frank Stronach who became a billionaire in Canada (his firm is Magna). He sponsors his party with millions of Euros and "buys" politicians from other parties. Rather strange...
     
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Pete, why do you call Austria a very peculiar country?

    Edit; I'm sorry, I understood "peculiar" as "strange"...
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2013
  30. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    that happens anywhere else.I don´t think there is any important european politician that could stand the Truth Machine, and I doubt we would find one either in America,Africa,Japan,China,Latin America or the Middle East, for that matter.
     
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, You are probably right. I once was member of the Green Party but I left it soon in disgust. There was only lies, power struggle and egoism...
     
  32. Pete M.

    Pete M. New User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    Well, I can say a lot of good things about Austria. But,in my opinion, the austrians from the south are nicer than the vienneses.
    Vienneses were a bit rude sometimes, especially when I said I was in Vienna to work. Then, I understood they have some troubles with people from eastern europe.
     
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Pete M, As a Viennese I should try to be very friendly towards yourself that you can change your opinion about Vienna a bit...
     
  34. Pete M.

    Pete M. New User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    Don't get me wrong: I loved the place. It was just the impression that some people left on me.
     
  35. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    hahaha...I thought you were quite more to the right, to be honest.
     
  36. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    suthern Austria people are very nice and willing to help.That was my experience, at least.

    maybe Viennesse are a bit arrogant but look, nothing compared to Londoners,New Yorkers and of course Parisians ( you can´t get more arrogant than a true parisian anyway)

    It happens in the big cities or important capitals.In Prague they are also a bit like that...
     
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, I was with the Greens long ago (1983 to 1985). Since then I have gone a long way politically. I dislike the Green Party nowadays. It is more red than green now...
     
  38. aer0pr0

    aer0pr0 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 10, 2013
    Messages:
    109
    at their best who would win?

    Hello everyone ive just registered..

    i dont want to take credit to the great legends bjorn borg, or lendl and even edberg and becker are.. because the thruth is they were amazing..

    But come on, any top20 from todays power game would simply demolish borg, and win easily to a lot of old "legends" i see around here.
    The game has changed, its impossible to say whos better, because thats not even a question. Those guys were great at their time, the best at the game in that era and thanks to them the game developed.. But they would stand no chance against todays tour players. Its a total different game.
     
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    aer0pr0, The game has become faster mostly by the modern racquet technology. Borg with a current racquet would have a good chance to cope with a Nadal or Federer.

    The game has also regressed in a way: the current top players cannot volley anymore like the older players could...
     
  40. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,741
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Borg would be a beast with modern equipement, I don't think he'd be better than Nadal or Federer but he'd be their equivalent.

    Bobby, the decline of volleying is largely a product of topsin and slow high bouncing courts. Makes volleying more difficult and less successful. I don't think it's a lack of aptitude. Perhaps a lack of practice.
     
  41. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    You know the joke about the Greens and the Watermelons, right?
     
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Yes, kiki, that's exactly what I mean...
     
  43. Pete M.

    Pete M. New User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    Yes, a lack of practice is what I think too. I have talked with some coaches and some of them are teaching the volley as the first shot to the kids with 7 or 8 years old. Not just because it's easier than other shots but to give them a good volley technique.
     
  44. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Hawkeye, you didn't understood me. I didn't said that the less talented players choose clay. I said that they had success on this surfaces because the best had ill suited games for clay. They were competing between themselves, with the occasional presence of an attacking player in the later rounds of the tournaments.

    The weakness of these players is shown by their vulnerability to the attacking players and also to their vulnerability to nobodies like Meligeri, Dewulf, Svensson, etc. (see my previous post for the full list). These one semi-final wonder did not exist on the same extent in other surfaces. A point you did not address in your answer.

    The players who "dominated" clay didn't not choose clay because they were less talented, they had success on clay because it was the surfaces were room was available for them. Just like clay was the surface which was available for Rosset and Dewulf to reach a slam semi-final.

    The effective split of the field by surfaces allowed player to become surfaces specialist. But being a specialist doesn't mean that they were better player on the surfaces than generalist from a decade later.
     
  45. hawk eye

    hawk eye Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Messages:
    2,090
    FOG, the vulnerability to fast court players I actually did adress in my earlier posts, before you came up with your theory.

    Basically that means that fast court specialists did better on clay than vice versa. I's pretty obvious as well: for instance McEnroe, Edberg and Stich all reached FO finals. After Borg, none of the great claycourters like Bruguera, Muster and Kuerten reached the latter stages of Wimbledon.

    A fast court game translates better to clay then a claycourt game translates to fast court, especially grass. Heavy topspin groundstrokes from the baseline with more extreme grips is just not effective on the old, fast and low bouncing grass. The only who could pull that off whas Bjorn Borg, but he was exceptional fysical talent who could move an make passing shots like no one else, and could serve & volley effecively as well.

    In your earlier post you wrote:

    This doesn't leave much room for another explanation than that in your vision, the top claycourters were less talented than the top fast courters.
    It's true that you didn't say 'less talented players chose the clay courts', but whether one says they 'chose' the surface to succeed, or whether one says 'clay was the surface where was room available for them' doesn't make much of a difference. In your theory it boils down to this: they couldn't expect to do much on fast courts, so they made clay their bread and butter.

    Now I've taken a closer look at the players you mention to illustrate that the clayfield wasn't that strong. The likes of Sampras (not that strange, the best player of the decade making a SF at his least favorite major), Stich and other fast court players I've already coverered above.
    Some other players you mention were out-and-out claycourt specialists, who won multiple titles on the dirt and were top 10 at one point in their careers: Berasetequi, Mantilla.
    Meligeni was also a pure claycourt specialist, who reached a QF in RG as the hightlight of his career. Not something that's examplary for a weak 90's clayfield.
    Gomez and Norman were great allround players with a clay preference. They also fared well on some other surfaces. Norman reached a nr. 2 in singles but had to retire early due to injuries. Gomes reached nr.4 ammd was a very gifted lefty who won many titles, also in doubles.
    In fact the only one who could be labeled a journeman is your list is Filip de Wulf, with obviously clay being his best surface.

    These cases don't prove there was lack of competition in the 90's clayfield, just like the runs of Stoltenberg, Washington and Wheaton at Wimbledon aren't prove of a weak grasscourt field.

    Yes, I do think it actually does mean that. Playing mainly on clay makes you a better player on that surface than when it's just another one the surfaces you compete on the tour, where the hardcourts dominate the scene. The different surfaces still play differently, though not (remotely) as much as in the 80's and 90's.
     

Share This Page