Despite all the praise Federer gets, often times I don't think people are aware of his capability on Clay. Heck, many would even hesitate to call him definitively the second best clay courter of this era, which he has been for the past 4 years. If Nadal wasn't in the picture Federer could quite possibly have 3 or 4 Roland Garros titles under his belt (taking this current years into account and the semifinal lost to nadal in 2005) as well most of those clay court master series titles where he lost to Nadal in the final. I know among many board members a player has to actually get the titles to be considered one of the greats. But I think the problem is Federer who could be considered one of the greats is living in an era with the greatest claycourter ever. Well if you guys refuse to agree with me about him being one of the clay greats despite his lack of victories I would at least hope that there isn't much argument he is definitely overall the best clay courter other than Nadal of this generation (also taking into account rising Djokovic). Lets take a look at Gustavo Kuerten who is unquestioned by most of you as a clay court great. In his runs to his 3 Roland Garros titles he never dominated his opponents in mostly 3 but occasionally 4 sets like Federer. Quite often he'd go to 5 sets. Federer never losing more than 1 sets to an opponent since 2005 (other than Nadal) is indicative of his profound skill on clay. In the very end I'm just trying to show that he should get more recognition for his clay court ability than is often given to him, whether or not he is considered a possible clay court great.