Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by timnz, May 18, 2009.
would love to see nadal/muster...love it.
Exactly. Muster was winning clay events well into September, after the US Open had taken place. Nadal's four clay court titles in 2008 came during the normal clay season, four of his five came in the same period in 2007, and his four titles in 2006 came in the same period as well.
And it's not like he didn't lose on clay in 1995; he still suffered defeats against Costa and Corretja. High quality clay court opponents, to be sure, but so were Nadal's losses from 2006-2008: didn't lose a match on clay in 2006, lost to four time French Open finalist and reigning holder of the Coupe des Mousquetaires, Roger Federer, in Hamburg in 2007, and lost to former FO champion, JC Ferrero, in Rome in 2008.
Thanks for those stats on Muster Mustard. You must be a big fan.
That sort of record over such a long stretch certainly does stack up as an exceptional performance in the game's history.
Great and amazing stats :shock:
anyone that didnt put Bruguera on their list is a disgrace
Putting Bruguera above Rosewall, Muster (even with an extra French), and Lendl is a much bigger disgrace than not having him in the top 10.
LOL Guga before Nadal RLMAO!!!
Agassi before Lendl and Courier good one, you sure are the joker of the day
bruguera would get in nadals head if they played. rafa wouldnt be able to wear him down. sergi would drop shot rafa to death and make it a war.
the year bruguera beat courier in the final I have not seen anyone play as good on clay as that match.
Check out Nadal's 2008 RG run or for that matter Borg's runs. That's the best CC tennis you will ever see.
Bruguera was really lazy. That was his real problem. Were it not for that, not only would he have more FO's, he would have been a real threat at the other slams as well. He had as much spin as Nadal does today. He had good hands. He had great court coverage. He actually was quite a bit more talented than Muster, too bad he didn't have 1/4 of Muster's work ethic. Nobody was able to get him to work, not his coaches, not John Mcenroe, not his father. A shame.
Results--not coulda, shoulda, wanna.
Please explain how a 3 time RG champion is better than a 4 time RG champion.
You go JD. Good point!
When was the 53-match winning streak of Vilas's on clay? 1977?
Didn't play Borg at all during that streak. Borg was 3-0 against Vilas that year.
And yes the streak was in 1977. Some have the streak at 50 if you count another tournament.
I know this may sound silly to some of you but while I don't think Jimmy Connors is the clay court GOAT I do think he was a great clay court player. He won the US Open on har tru and won many top clay court tournaments. I think Connors is a top clay court player. I think he very well could be in the top 15 of all time. Put it this way, I think he's far better than Michael Chang and yet Chang has one French Open and Connors doesn't.
19. von Cramm
25. Frank Parker
28. Sven Davidson
29. Jack Crawford
30. Fred Perry
Connors was ferocious on any surface, and he won the US Open on har-tru in 1976 over Borg, and was runner-up on green-clay at the USO twice (1975, 1977).
May-October 1977 and it was controversially ended by Ilie Nastase and the spaghetti-strung racquet he was using in the match (1977 Aix-en-Provence final). Vilas retired in the best of 5 sets match in protest after Nastase won the first two sets 6-1, 7-5. After that match, Vilas won another 21 clay-court matches in a row before 1977 ended. Ignoring that Nastase match, Vilas won 74 clay-court matches in a row and 74 matches in a row overall (not all of them on clay).
2-0, seeing as the 3rd was in January 1978 in the semi finals of the Masters. Still, the fact is that during the clay-streak, Vilas could only beat who was in front of him and he did that. I believe that Vilas could possibly have beaten Borg at that time because he was playing so well and his confidence was sky high, so I don't know why people just assume that Borg would have hammered him had they met on clay in the second half of 1977. Is it the 1978 French Open final that convinces them? But Vilas wasn't as good then as he had been 6-9 months previously. Even though I think Vilas played a great match in the 1978 French Open final inspite of the scoreline being one-sided in Borg's favour, the Borg in that tournament was Borg at his absolute best, close to perfection.
I am now of the understanding that von Cramm and Nusslein only played once and that von Cramm won but in virtually all the practice matches Nusslein won. I've been generally of the opinion over the years that Nusslein is clearly up there with the Vines, Budge, and Perry trio (which I suppose would make it a quartet) as far as tennis strength is concerned. From what I have read of his style, he seems to be a 1930's version of Agassi, hitting the ball on the rise and never missing. Well at least the older version of Agassi. I'm sure Nusslein enjoyed tennis more than Agassi. lol.
I suppose technically you're correct but the Masters is considered, strangely enough to be a part of the 1977 season so it's really 3-0.
It's kind of like American Football. The 2010 Super Bowl will be considered a part of the 2009 National Football League season.
It's appropriate you brought this thread back considering the Borg/Rosewall clay court thread.
My fantasy clay match ups of recent years. Kuerten at his best against Nadal at his best.
Nastase against Federer. Super speed, super touch by Nastase against Federer.
That's very interesting on Kuerten pc1, who took out Federer at the FO in 2004.
See this on him and Luxilon strings:
Nastase could probably out-psych Fed.
In my mind I see Nastase winning most of the time on clay, especially with wood. Come to think of it, with wood it would be a fascinating match up on any surface.
Nastase was a magician, but a crazy magician.
He and Tiriac were like Rasputin and the Wild Man of Borneo.
Do you guys know Tiriac is Romania's first BILLIONAIRE? The guy is the richest man in tennis! He started the first private bank there and started numerous banks/businesses in the country, post-Communism. He was "crazy like a fox":
So Romania's first billionaire is a man who used to eat glass on a bet. lol.
Holy cow--Tiriac is a billionaire?
Ahhh; this explains a lot: "In 1983, he [Tiriac] became a tennis manager; above all, he managed Boris Becker from 1984 to 1993."
Yes Hoodjem, lol. I almost fell out of my chair when I read that. He was "crazy like a Fox" wasn't he? Vilas and Becker, not bad as a player, coach, and manager, but he was known to be pretty strange. I'll take L. Bergelin instead!
If you had Tiriac and Nastase and Becker and Vilas play a doubles match, I think someone would be killed.
Three crazies and one poet--what a combination.
Here's the greatest claycourter thread.
Where's Kuerten? Where's Federer?
Not that it means much but I always got the impression Kuerten was one of the happiest men ever to play tennis. He seemed to really get joy out of just playing and hitting the ball.
I think you're list has it just about right Hoodjem. Kuerten is top 10. Federer is probably in the #10-#15 range or #15-#20 all time on your list. Some may disagree, but top 15-20 all time on a surface is really not bad. There have been so many greats over the years.
Of course. Tennis has been around a long time and there have been a lot of great players. If a player ranked in the top 15-20 on every surface for all time, that player probably would be in the top ten ever overall, maybe top five. The ranking of 10-15 is obviously even better.
20. von Cramm
26. Frank Parker
29. Sven Davidson
this is a pretty good list. I must admit i am not an expert on players before the open era, but i still think Guga is too low. Maybe i am biased since i am a huge fan of his clay court game, but i do think he should be higher.
True. Guga is very, very good on clay. But the players ahead of him are damn good.
After all, what is the name of the FO trophy? (Numbers 1-10 are pretty ethereal company.)
Where does Anthony Wilding fit on this list? As far as I can see he was mostly unbeaten for about 5 years on clay (1910 to 1914 seasons) and probably tallied the most clay court titles of anyone in history.
If Nadal is 2 and Fed lost 3 FO FINALS to him, wouldn't that give Fed more credibility on clay? Not to mention beating him in Madrid?
Here's a poll from another that has Federer as the #7 greatest CC of all time.
1. Björn Borg
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Mats Wilander
4. Gustavo Kuerten
5. Ivan Lendl
6. Guillermo Vilas
7. Roger Federer
8. Andre Agassi
9. Sergi Bruguera
10. Rod Laver
11. Thomas Muster
12. Ilie Nastase
13. Juan Carlos Ferrero
14. Jim Courier
15. Pete Sampras
16. Boris Becker
17. Guillermo Coria
18. Jan Kodes
19. Gaston Gaudio
20. Albert Costa
21. Andres Gimeno
That's an open era list.
Never mind. I think I've misread this post.
I better clarify my points in that post.
1. Vilas could have beaten Borg in the second half of 1977 had they played because his confidence was so high
2. Why do people consider that Borg would have definitely won if they had played in the second half of 1977? Is it the 1978 French Open final that convinces them?
3. Vilas played a great match in the 1978 French Open final, but the scoreline was one-sided in Borg's favour
4. Borg was at his absolute best during the 1978 French Open.
You rate Laver too low IMO. He did quite well vs Rosewall on clay. I can see Kuerten ranking over Laver since he would have won 5 or 6 Frenchs had his hip not gone out. However do you really think Wilander or even Lendl would win over a series of matches vs Laver with both in their primes on clay?
Also if one is giving Kuerten benefit of doubt on his career (the only way he could rank over Laver on clay IMO) then he too should rank higher in that case.
As much as I love to see Fed at #7, this list is a joke if it rates Sampras and Becker at #15 & #16 respectively. They belong somewhere around 41-50. How on earth are they ranked ahead of someone who actually won a FO (Gaudio) or someone who reached the finals (Coria)? Lists like these demonstrate the favorable bias towards the players of the past generation, while short-changing the current generation in the process.
You are seriously using rankopedia as your source!?!!?!?!
And those rankings are pure thrash. Courier just barely in front of Sampras and Becker. Coria over Kodes and Gimeno. Laver below Agassi and Bruguera. Complete nonsense.
You are desperate to find ways to pimp your hero Federer and it is getting sad.
No I'm not serious. Of course there's are names on there that I wouldn't included. I just want to get back at some folks undermined Roger, not just his clay level but everything else about his game/ability. I wouldn't list this on other forum, just this one. Now you know why.
I don't think Vilas was capable of beating a healthy Borg on any surface. However Borg wasn't healthy (at the US Open) and that's part of the game, so it doesn't matter.
you do understand that you are not exactly gaining any credibility for yourself or federer when the whole list is just so inane. Federer at #7 is one thing but some of those others there are ridiculous.
In an effort to prop up roger, you end up looking like a ******* because the list itself is made with regards to little logic.
Federer at #7 becomes questionable by default because the whole list is just bizarre.
Separate names with a comma.