federer as a clay courter

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by big ted, Oct 8, 2012.

  1. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,260
    Location:
    Chile
    No, I don't think either it was such a big deal. He found it hard to deal with Roddick's serve in that match. I think he was returning very close to the baseline.

    TDK can do that, apparently ;)
     
    #51
  2. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,671
    I think 6 is a good assessment. Federer did run into the clay goat, however we can't magically gift players slams based on who they faced or did not face. 1 slam + 5 finals should put him in the 2-3 slam winner range .

    6 is not shabby though. # 1 on hard courts , # 1 on grass (with Sampras) and # 6 on clay. Cant think of a player who wouldnt take that resume.
     
    #52
  3. jokinla

    jokinla Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    He's not, some people just don't read the OP.
     
    #53
  4. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    QFT. I've have him at #7.

    Some people just ignore the fact that Nadal is a clay goat and he's playing in this era. Not in the 60s, 70s or 90s. Federer is 2nd best behind him, and any past player who play along with Nadal can only be 2nd best(that's include borg, lendl, guga, rosewall). Had Nadal was just an average cc and Fed doesn't have a great run since 2005, I can understand he can't be in the top 10.

    Anyway, if you've posted Fed as #6 in the former pro player talk forum, the old-timers will say you're too young, too ignorant, no experience and thus not good enough to come up with assessment. Haha
     
    #54
  5. big ted

    big ted Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,833
    well apparently rogers winning percentage at the french open is 80.6 percent which is a smidgen less than the 3+FO winners. roger has won 10 clay tournaments. lendl and wilander have won 28 and 20 respectively. so i dont think federer can be put above the 3 time champions for open era
    1-nadal
    2- borg
    3- lendl, wilander
    5- kuerten
    6- vilas, muster, federer
     
    #55
  6. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Bleacher report does NOT rank Fed as no. 5 all-time.

    Here's their ranking.

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1347476-greatest-clay-court-players-in-tennis-history

    Here is that Bleacher list distilled for the men:
    1. Nadal
    2. Borg
    3. Cochet
    4. Lacoste
    5. Wilander
    6. Lendl
    7. Kuerten
     
    #56
  7. big ted

    big ted Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,833

    they do here. i guess a different person wrote the article and ranked them different...
    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1281722-mens-tennis-the-5-best-clay-court-players-of-all-time
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2012
    #57
  8. RF20Lennon

    RF20Lennon Legend

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,224
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #58
  9. TennisLovaLova

    TennisLovaLova Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    3,069
    the real question is : is federer > to borg on clay
    judging by the titles, yes of course
    but federer was denied by the clay goat nadal
    so it's impossible to say really
     
    #59
  10. Agassifan

    Agassifan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,542
    *much* better than Nadal as a hard courter
     
    #60
  11. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,260
    Location:
    Chile
    He has more finals, but Nadal actually beat Fed and Novak in hard court slams.
     
    #61
  12. Wilander Fan

    Wilander Fan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,555
    I would put him behind 2 time winners but with an asterisk. Given the number of other titles and the number of times he has lost to Nadal in the semis or finals, its not unfair to consider Fed to have been unlucky in playing in the same era as the clay court GOAT. He might have dominated clay in any other era.
     
    #62
  13. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    #63
  14. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,696
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Beat past his prime Federer in hard court slams. How many hardcourt titles has Federer won with Nadal in the draw? If Nadal wasn't even good enough to reach Federer it's a bit unfair to cite the head to head.
     
    #64
  15. TennisLovaLova

    TennisLovaLova Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    3,069
    AO isnt really a true hard court so to speak
    it plays slower than Roland Garros
     
    #65
  16. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    On level of play on clay he's #2 or #3. His level of play on clay is higher than Muster, Bruguera, Lendl, Wilander, and most likely he would have taken out Borg regularly. But level comparisons are complicated by equipment changes. Borg would have been better had he grown up with larger headsizes and used copoly strings, but we'll never know how good. He definitely would not have had the power of Federer or Nadal. He would have been something like a faster, more accurate Ferrer. Would that be good enough to beat Nadal and Fed on clay?

    On claycourt record alone Fed is top-10 all-time on clay.

    Combining level and record, taking into account that the majority of his claycourt losses have come at the hands of the claycourt GOAT, and he's #3.
     
    #66
  17. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,260
    Location:
    Chile
    Probably as much past his prime as Nadal was in last year's RG.

    Nadal wasn't at his prime yet on hard courts.
     
    #67
  18. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,696
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Last years RG is irrelevent to how Nadal and Federer have done in hard court slams...

    Well then I guess all we have to go on is how they did when did enter their primes on hard courts and currently Fed has 9 slams to Nadals 2.
     
    #68
  19. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    While I agree with this overall, no way would I rank Muster ahead of Fed at this point, 5 FO finals compared to getting past QF twice and one final is just too much of a gap IMO even if we presume Muster's peak level on clay was better than Fed's (which is something I personally think).

    Courier is a different matter, I think he's underrated as a claycourter, one could certainly argue he should be ranked higher than Fed on clay.
     
    #69
  20. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,690
    I agree that Federer is ahead of Muster in the clay court pecking order. I also agree that Muster's peak level on clay from 1995-1996 when he won had a spell of 99 wins out of 102 on the surface was better than Federer's.

    However I think that even a peak level Muster would find Federer to be a pretty horrible match-up on clay. I think that Muster would have far more problems facing Federer on clay, but would get the better of Djokovic more often than not.
     
    #70
  21. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    So would Federer.
     
    #71
  22. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I didnt say I would rank Muster above Federer on clay. I only said one could definitely make an argument to rank Muster above Federer on clay and it wouldnt be at all unreasonable. Muster had 2 years he was far and away the Worlds best clay courter. Federer never was this. Muster also has won Rome and Monte Carlo, the 2nd and 3rd most prestigious clay court events, twice each. Federer has never won Rome or Monte Carlo. Lastly while I dont think the numerous tiny clay titles should be overemphasized it is still worth noting he has 40 clay titles.
     
    #72
  23. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,260
    Location:
    Chile
    It's not really all we have to go by. But we'd probably just go around in circles with this.
     
    #73
  24. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    Just so we know, which of the *three* titles (each) Muster won at MC and Rome are you asterisking? The '92 demolition of Krickstein in MC and the '90 execution of Chesnokov in Rome, I imagine? ;)
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2012
    #74

Share This Page