Originally Posted by xFullCourtTenniSx
Number 1 is absolutely Nadal. He is by far the best clay court player the game has ever seen. He is an absolute beast on the red dirt and has an unbelievable defensive game. Borg was good, but Nadal is simply unbeatable in terms of defense and that is probably the most important thing on clay. The second most important thing is the ability to rally and construct points, and Nadal also has that going for him.
Number 2 is Borg. Do I even need to really argue his case?
Federer I believe could've been known as one of the clay court greats had it not been for Nadal. Federer did very well on clay before Nadal came and took all the trophies on the dirt. I mean, Federer coul've had 5 straight titles at Roland Garros if Nadal were never born. But such an argument is, of course, unfair. But Federer has made it to 4 straight French Open finals; and before that made it to the semifinals, where he lost to Nadal. Federer has also beaten Nadal on clay, which is a massive achievement for anyone who pulls off such a feat. Not only that, he BAGELED Nadal on clay. How many times do you see Nadal bageled? How many times will you ever see him bageled on his own turf?
And there's also Coria. He was a good clay court player as well. But I'm not too familiar with the older generation players, so I can't really make a case for or against any of these players. All I know is that Borg was essentially the old school Nadal and Nadal is the buffed up, modern-day Borg.
I have Nadal ahead of Borg as well! sure Borg got more FO at this point, but Nadal dominated all claycourt events the last 5 years (09 was not as great I know) Nadal is still very young, even with his physical problems he could easily focus on clay only and win pretty much all there is, but his ambitions is bigger than just being the greatest claycourter!