Clay Court GOAT

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

How many matches did Federer lose to Kuerten even when he was handicapped? Vilas would expose Federer on clay the same way Kuerten did.

Fed lost two matches against Guga on clay.

However Vilas is no Guga (not by a longshot). Vilas wouldn't expose anything when it comes to Fed, he'd maybe have a slight winning H2H on clay (and even about that I have my doubts) but that's about it.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by zagor

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.

Federer did so in an era of homoginized tennis surfaces lacking in clay court specialists. Having said that, I would consede that Federer might be near the top 20 greatest of all time on clay, even though his game was largely neutralized and less effective on clay. But, he was/is no Vilas, or Nastase.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Federer would struggle to get sets off of Vilas...

LOL!

Not really, atleast Fed put up some semblence of a fight against his CC GOAT nemesis unlike Vilas.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Federer did so in an era of homoginized tennis surfaces lacking in clay court specialists. Having said that, I would consede that Federer might be near the top 20 greatest of all time on clay, even though his game was largely neutralized and less effective on clay. But, he was/is no Vilas, or Nastase.

Oh Fed's definitely not Vilas, he doesn't enter gazzilion mickey mouse CC tourneys and he actually makes a match out of it the majority of time he plays his CC GOAT nemesis on clay.

Fed lost in straights to Nadal on clay only 3 times, compared to Vilas receving around 10 straight set beatdowns from Borg on that surface.

[Carsomyr]

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.

Indeed, it is a record. It is also evidence of how many clay tournaments Vilas won without Borg in the draw: 39, in fact. Only six of the former's titles came when Borg was in the draw. While some of these tournaments were nevertheless prestigious, a great deal of them would be classifiable as "Mickey Mouse" events. It would be like Federer racking up clay titles in (today's) Hamburg or Kitzbuhel.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Indeed, it is a record. It is also evidence of how many clay tournaments Vilas won without Borg in the draw: 39, in fact. Only six of the former's titles came when Borg was in the draw. While some of these tournaments were nevertheless prestigious, a great deal of them would be classifiable as "Mickey Mouse" events. It would be like Federer racking up clay titles in (today's) Hamburg or Kitzbuhel.

But you see according to historians, the fact that Vilas was Borg's b!tch noticeably more even than Fed is Nadal doesn't take away from his "greatness" (LOL) but Fed on the other hand sucks on clay because of his H2H against Nadal and the fact that he won his FO title without beating Nadal.

It's an amazing logic when you think about it.

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

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

That wasn't my conclusion at all. I was just pointing out how everyone, including the guys you pal around with in this forum, were baffled by Sampras' appearance on a groundstroke GOAT list. Hilarious. Your ratings involving Federer are exclusionary while with Sampras, inclusionary.

[jean pierre]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Indeed, it is a record. It is also evidence of how many clay tournaments Vilas won without Borg in the draw: 39, in fact. Only six of the former's titles came when Borg was in the draw. While some of these tournaments were nevertheless prestigious, a great deal of them would be classifiable as "Mickey Mouse" events. It would be like Federer racking up clay titles in (today's) Hamburg or Kitzbuhel.

"Mickey Mouse events" doesn' mean anything. It's impossible to say "mickey mouse event" just because Borg wasn't there. Vilas won these tournaments on clay beating in final Orantes, Connors, Nastase, Panatta, Gottfried, Fibak, Ramirez, Kodes, Lendl, Higueras, Noah, Clerc, Leconte .... Mickey Mouse ??

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by zagor

But you see according to historians, the fact that Vilas was Borg's b!tch noticeably more even than Fed is Nadal doesn't take away from his "greatness" (LOL) but Fed on the other hand sucks on clay because of his H2H against Nadal and the fact that he won his FO title without beating Nadal.

It's an amazing logic when you think about it.

Spectacular logic.

For the record, I don't think Vilas is a slouch on clay. Aside from the extremely depleted FO event he won, he made three other Roland Garros final and won a US Open played on (green) clay. But touting him as some kind of unbeatable clay court force (against Federer, a least) when he only won six clay titles with Borg in the draw is a major distortion of historical reality.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Spectacular logic.

For the record, I don't think Vilas is a slouch on clay. Aside from the extremely depleted FO event he won, he made three other Roland Garros final and won a US Open played on (green) clay. But touting him as some kind of unbeatable clay court force (against Federer, a least) when he only won six clay titles with Borg in the draw is a major distortion of historical reality.

I didn't say Vials is a slouch on clay but Fed as a CC player is at the very least comparable to him and he (Vilas) is nowhere near someone like Guga on clay.

And Fed would certainly not struggle winning sets against Vilas on clay, that's an absolutely hilarious claim when Fed actually won plenty of sets against freakin CC monster that is Nadal.

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

"Mickey Mouse events" doesn' mean anything. It's impossible to say "mickey mouse event" just because Borg wasn't there. Vilas won these tournaments on clay beating in final Orantes, Connors, Nastase, Panatta, Gottfried, Fibak, Ramirez, Kodes, Lendl, Higueras, Noah, Clerc, Leconte .... Mickey Mouse ??

I didn't say they were all Mickey Mouse tournaments. But please, regale me with tales of the legendary Barry Phillips-Moore. Of Jaime Filiol. Of Karl Meiler, Željko Franulović, and Buster Mattram.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by zagor

Fed lost two matches against Guga on clay.

I thought it was just the one? Kuerten beat Federer twice, at 2003 Indian Wells and the 2004 French Open. Federer beat Kuerten once, at 2002 Hamburg.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Spectacular logic.

For the record, I don't think Vilas is a slouch on clay. Aside from the extremely depleted FO event he won, he made three other Roland Garros final and won a US Open played on (green) clay. But touting him as some kind of unbeatable clay court force (against Federer, a least) when he only won six clay titles with Borg in the draw is a major distortion of historical reality.

It wasn't "depleted". Defending champion, Panatta, was there, as was 1973 champion, Nastase. Other tough players like Ramirez, Solomon and Gottfried were in the draw. Borg consciously knew that signing a contract to play 1977 WTT for the Cleveland Nets would make him ineligible to play at the 1977 French Open.

[NadalAgassi]

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

Excellent list. In total agreement except for one point. I think you have Bruguera a bit too high, especialy relative to Courier, Muster, and even Federer. JMO though.

[NadalAgassi]

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.

I think Federer was ranked about right. Around where Muster and Courier are. I put all three about the same level overall on clay. Courier in 92 and Muster in 95-96 were way better but didnt mantain that level or close to it very long, so overall they come out fairly even. Federer has excellent longevity and consistency on clay, and a ton of FO finals, even though benefiting from the really weak clay era of today (as does Nadal to a much lesser extent).

It is hard to say Federer isnt superior to Agassi on clay, and Agassi at #23 (to Federer's #1 was also about right IMO.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Spectacular logic.

For the record, I don't think Vilas is a slouch on clay. Aside from the extremely depleted FO event he won, he made three other Roland Garros final and won a US Open played on (green) clay. But touting him as some kind of unbeatable clay court force (against Federer, a least) when he only won six clay titles with Borg in the draw is a major distortion of historical reality.

Carsomyr, the clueless GOAT strikes back with another gem that is priceless...

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by Mustard

It wasn't "depleted". Defending champion, Panatta, was there, as was 1973 champion, Nastase. Other tough players like Ramirez, Solomon and Gottfried were in the draw. Borg consciously knew that signing a contract to play 1977 WTT for the Cleveland Nets would make him ineligible to play at the 1977 French Open.

More importantly, Borg wasn't there. This was not a case of him showing up and losing. He just wasn't there. He figured that WTT was more important than whatever peanuts the FO was tossing out. Other noticeable absences: Connors, Gerulaitis, and Orantes, all of which were threats on clay, the latter two being FO finalists. Three of year-end top 5 skipped the event, and half the top 10.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Here we are--

The names are there...but Nastase should be way higher.Panatta should also be in, What about Decugis?

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by kiki

Carsomyr, the clueless GOAT strikes back with another gem that is priceless...

kiki, the autistic GOAT strikes back with another hilariously phrased post that is worthless....

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I thought it was just the one? Kuerten beat Federer twice, at 2003 Indian Wells and the 2004 French Open. Federer beat Kuerten once, at 2002 Hamburg.

My mistake, I meant to say they played twice on clay.