Clay Court GOAT

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

iN FACT, CLAY COURT IS THE ONLY SURFACE WHERE I WOULD SAY THAT TODAY´S PLAYERS CAN RIVAL WITH THE 1970´S OR 1980´S.SO NADAL HAS MERIT IN WINNING THE FO 6 TIMES.ANOTHER THINK IS THE USO, WIMBLEDON OR THAT THING CALLED YEC.

THERE'S NO FACT, IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION. MY OPINION IS TODAY'S PLAYERS ARE BETTER THAN ANY PREVIOUS ERA IN ANY SURFACE, ESPECIALLY ON HC.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

THERE'S NO FACT, IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION. MY OPINION IS TODAY'S PLAYERS ARE BETTER THAN ANY PREVIOUS ERA IN ANY SURFACE, ESPECIALLY ON HC.

I agree with TMF about opinions. That's his opinion. My opinion is different.

I may regard my opinion as more logical and more supported by evidence, but that's just my opinion.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I agree with TMF about opinions. That's his opinion. My opinion is different.

I may regard my opinion as more logical and more supported by evidence, but that's just my opinion.

I agree.Opinions are opinions and every one is entitled to make the arguments that support them.that is all about.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

THERE'S NO FACT, IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION. MY OPINION IS TODAY'S PLAYERS ARE BETTER THAN ANY PREVIOUS ERA IN ANY SURFACE, ESPECIALLY ON HC.

First, today´s grass has nothing to see with former grass

Second, today about 70% of the tournaments are played on HC, so it is normal there is much evidence of seeing hard court play today than any time before

Third, the opposite is true concerning indoor, in the 70´s and 80´s, even some 90´s, indoor was much more played than now, so we were used to see former players indoors as often as you are used seeing hard court players today

Finally, clay is the only surface that has remained relatively unchanged.That is why, IMO, clay is the surface were we can be more objective in comparing today´s and former players.

Of course, I don´t get into the matherials, balls, rackets and strings which have changed so much that it is almost impossible to make a fair comparison.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by kiki

Finally, clay is the only surface that has remained relatively unchanged.That is why, IMO, clay is the surface were we can be more objective in comparing today´s and former players.

Of course, I don´t get into the matherials, balls, rackets and strings which have changed so much that it is almost impossible to make a fair comparison.

I know that the dimensions of the court have not changed. Have the dimensions of the ball changed much?


(Weren't all tennis balls back in the 20s or 30s pressureless?)

[kiki]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I know that the dimensions of the court have not changed. Have the dimensions of the ball changed much?


(Weren't all tennis balls back in the 20s or 30s pressureless?)

yeah¡ only court dimensions haven´t changed.Balls,Rackets,Court speed, matherials,strings every aspect of the game has changed, so any comparison should be within the same theoretical conditions.

[urban]

I read from Dan Maskell, that no ball was better than the hand-made used in the 20s. Woh, what could modern tennis be more exciting with such kind of balls (no Wilander joke).

[hoodjem]

1. Borg-Nadal (co-number ones)
3. Rosewall
4. Cochet
5. Lendl
6. Wilander
7. Lacoste
8. Kuerten
9. Laver
10. Borotra
11. Drobny
12. Vilas
13. Santana
14. Bruguera
15. Pietrangeli
16. Muster
17. Courier
18. Federer
19. Kodes
20. von Cramm
21. Emerson
22. Trabert
23. Agassi
24. Connors
25. Gimeno
26. Frank Parker
27. Roche
28. Nastase
29. Sven Davidson
30. Jack Crawford
31. Fred Perry
32. J.E. Patty

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

1. Borg-Nadal (co-number ones)
3. Rosewall
4. Cochet
5. Lendl
6. Wilander
7. Lacoste
8. Kuerten
9. Laver
10. Borotra
11. Drobny
12. Vilas
13. Santana
14. Bruguera
15. Pietrangeli
16. Muster
17. Courier
18. Federer
19. Kodes
20. von Cramm
21. Emerson
22. Trabert
23. Agassi
24. Connors
25. Gimeno
26. Frank Parker
27. Roche
28. Nastase
29. Sven Davidson
30. Jack Crawford
31. Fred Perry
32. J.E. Patty

Federer doesn't belong on the list. But for Nadal's bad knees, Soderling would never had eliminated him in 2009, and Ralph would have, yet, another win in a major final against Federer. Nastase, on the other hand, should be much higher on the list near Vilas. He was a master clay court player.

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Federer doesn't belong on the list. But for Nadal's bad knees, Soderling would never had eliminated him in 2009, and Ralph would have, yet, another win in a major final against Federer. Nastase, on the other hand, should be much higher on the list near Vilas. He was a master clay court player.

Five RG finals, including a title, along with five MS titles, "doesn't belong on the list?" Speaking of Vilas, he won but two matches against Borg on clay, the first and last ones they ever played, going 0-11 in between. Vilas' lone French Open win in 1977 didn't see the worlds' two best players in the draw, one of whom is arguably the clay GOAT. Amusing how exclusionary you are regarding Federer when Sampras somehow makes your greatest groundstrokes of all time list.

[jean pierre]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Five RG finals, including a title, along with five MS titles, "doesn't belong on the list?" Speaking of Vilas, he won but two matches against Borg on clay, the first and last ones they ever played, going 0-11 in between. Vilas' lone French Open win in 1977 didn't see the worlds' two best players in the draw, one of whom is arguably the clay GOAT. Amusing how exclusionary you are regarding Federer when Sampras somehow makes your greatest groundstrokes of all time list.

Vilas won 45 tournaments on clay (record). He won 2 Grand Slams (FO and USO) and all big tournaments on clay (Monte-Carlo, Rome, Madrid, Hambourg). Better than Federer.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Five RG finals, including a title, along with five MS titles, "doesn't belong on the list?" Speaking of Vilas, he won but two matches against Borg on clay, the first and last ones they ever played, going 0-11 in between. Vilas' lone French Open win in 1977 didn't see the worlds' two best players in the draw, one of whom is arguably the clay GOAT. Amusing how exclusionary you are regarding Federer when Sampras somehow makes your greatest groundstrokes of all time list.

A true clay court great, Kuerten, when only moderately heallthy, exposed a peak Federer for being out of his element on clay. It's not that complicated. Federer's game just isn't that effective against a genuine clay court specialist. Your implied conclusion that great groundstrokes require greatness on clay is misguided. IMO, Federer had the best overall ground game in the history of tennis. But, on clay, he is made to look bad against another great ground gamer who specialized on clay.

See for yourself. Note that Kuerten was only a shell of his former clay court greatness in this match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7mdkkgdOPg

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

Vilas won 45 tournaments on clay (record). He won 2 Grand Slams (FO and USO) and all big tournaments on clay (Monte-Carlo, Rome, Madrid, Hambourg). Better than Federer.

Carsomyr is too busy playing video games to be bothered with tennis history.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Federer doesn't belong on the list. But for Nadal's bad knees, Soderling would never had eliminated him in 2009, and Ralph would have, yet, another win in a major final against Federer. Nastase, on the other hand, should be much higher on the list near Vilas. He was a master clay court player.

How many FOs Vilas won beating Borg for the title? How many sets did he take off Borg at the FO? What was his H2H with Borg on clay?

If Fed doesn't belong on the list than neither does Vilas and no, I don't care about 100 CC mickey mouse tourneys won or whether he won a slam on green clay.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by zagor

How many FOs Vilas won beating Borg for the title? How many sets did he take off Borg at the FO? What was his H2H with Borg on clay?

If Fed doesn't belong on the list than neither does Vilas and no, I don't care about 100 CC mickey mouse tourneys won or whether he won a slam on green clay.

What you do or don't care about is not relevant. Borg is the greatest clay court player of all time. Everything that Vilas did well, Borg did a little better. That takes nothing away from the greatness of Vilas. Federer is out of his element on clay. His game is not as effective on clay, whereas, Vilas game was more effective on clay. Given equal equipment, both Borg and Vilas would dominate Federer on clay.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

Vilas won 45 tournaments on clay (record). He won 2 Grand Slams (FO and USO) and all big tournaments on clay (Monte-Carlo, Rome, Madrid, Hambourg). Better than Federer.

Did Vilas beat Borg to win any one of his CC masters? Atleast Fed beat Nadal (whom many consider to be atleast on par with Borg) in Hamburg and Madrid finals.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Borg is the greatest clay court player of all time. .

Many say the same about Nadal.

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Everything that Vilas did well, Borg did a little better.

He was Borg's plaything on clay, worse than Fed is Nadal's by some margin.

If you're making a point bout Borg being a bad match-up for Vilas, I could say the same thing in regards to Fedal (I hope I don't have to explain why).

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

That takes nothing away from the greatness of Vilas. Federer is out of his element on clay.

But it takes away from Fed's greatness on clay that he has a lopsided record against Nadal and that he lost one match against Kuerten on clay.

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

His game is not as effective on clay, whereas, Vilas game was more effective on clay. Given equal equipment, both Borg and Vilas would dominate Federer on clay.

Vilas wouldn't dominate Federer on any surface/equipment/conditions that ever existed in the history of the game.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by zagor

Did Vilas beat Borg to win any one of his CC masters? Atleast Fed beat Nadal (whom many consider to be atleast on par with Borg) in Hamburg and Madrid finals.

Clap, clap, clap, clap . . . . So what? Federer is not an all time great clay court player. He is out of his element on clay. His game loses effectiveness on clay. Lesser players, who specialize on clay, expose Federer on clay.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by zagor

Many say the same about Nadal.



He was Borg's plaything on clay, worse than Fed is Nadal's by some margin.

If you're making a point bout Borg being a bad match-up for Vilas, I could say the same thing in regards to Fedal (I hope I don't have to explain why).



But it takes away from Fed's greatness on clay that he has a lopsided record against Nadal and that he lost one match against Kuerten on clay.



Vilas wouldn't dominate Federer on any surface/equipment/conditions that ever existed in the history of the game.

How many matches did Federer lose to Kuerten even when he was handicapped? Vilas would expose Federer on clay the same way Kuerten did. Federer would struggle to get sets off of Vilas the same way he struggled against a handicapped Kuerten.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Clap, clap, clap, clap . . . . So what? Federer is not an all time great clay court player. He is out of his element on clay. His game loses effectiveness on clay. Lesser players, who specialize on clay, expose Federer on clay.

Depends on your definition of all time great, I'd say he's in the top 20.

Players who are out of their element on clay don't make 5 FO finals, win a FO title and 5 masters on that surface.