Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove
Can someone explain me the coherence of ranking these to guys so far from each others, when one win everything and the other was runner-up of everything?
Hoodjem ranked Federer at #19 all-time, I don't think that's unreasonable. Certainly I don't think he can be in the top ten all-time when you have the likes of, chronologically,
and some others who I've likely forgotten.
Top 20 all-time on clay is about right for Fed. He would have won more were it not for Nadal, but having said that, he wouldn't have run riot - past clay greats like Kuerten (as he showed in the FO 2004), Lendl and Wilander would still probably have beaten him, at least some of the time.