Clay Court GOAT

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

True. He also beat a screaming, hot tempered, Federer at Indian Wells on hard court.

As we all know, he also beat peak Federer at the French when he (Kuerten) was over the hill.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by pc1

As we all know, he also beat peak Federer at the French when he (Kuerten) was over the hill.

Let's be honest. Kuerten was a great clay court specialist. He had the talent to be great on any surface, and he had some off clay success, but, perhaps not the health to develop that talent to its fullest extent.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Nadal_Power

He was a joke on Carpet and Grass, and his Indoor record is nothing special with just above 50% of wins

LOL did you forget the 2000 WTF final which was defnitely played indoors, and I believe was on a carpet. Nadal too is mostly a joke on indoors, heaven forbid what he would be on carpet had he ever played on it, and never even had to test himself on fast grass, but he is still a great player. I believe Kuerten would have won a hard court slam or two had he stayed healthy.

[Gizo]

Statistically Lendl beats Kuerten in pretty every category on clay. He had a better record RG having reached 2 more finals, he won 28 clay court titles compared to Kuerten's 14 (even if you want to ignore Lendl's green clay titles he still won 16 titles on red clay), and he won more 'big' clay court titles winning Monte-Carlo, Rome and Hamburg twice apiece while Kuerten 'only' won Rome and Hamburg once each.

Also Lendl had clay court rivalries with Wilander and Vilas who I would say were better players on the surface than anyone Kuerten ever faced. Beating Vilas twice in big clay court matches in Buenos Aires was particularly impressive.

I do think that Kuerten was far more enjoyable to watch on clay than Lendl though with his artistry, compared to Lendl who featured in so many moonball-fests on the surface (the 1987 RG final was horrific).

Still he was far less reliable and more vulnerable on clay than Lendl ever was I felt. In his prime for instance he got his *** kicked by Hewitt in his home city in the 2001 Davis Cup.

Lendl won pretty much all of the biggest tournaments available to him on red and green clay (he won the biggest green clay event of his era, Forest Hills, 4 times)

[Nadal_Power]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

LOL did you forget the 2000 WTF final which was defnitely played indoors, and I believe was on a carpet. Nadal too is mostly a joke on indoors, heaven forbid what he would be on carpet had he ever played on it, and never even had to test himself on fast grass, but he is still a great player. I believe Kuerten would have won a hard court slam or two had he stayed healthy.

Indoor Hard. Yeap, Rafa is big joke Indoors, even he can't deny that

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

As we all know, he also beat peak Federer at the French when he (Kuerten) was over the hill.

But Fed beat him when he was a kid, so they are 1-1 overall h2h. You don't know how they would fare if both were playing in the sam era, same prime years.

[Gizo]

Another point on the Lendl-Kuerten comparison.

Lendl's career win-loss record on clay was 329-75, a 81.4% success rate. Kuerten's record was 181-78, a 69.9% success rate. So Lendl played 145 more matches than Kuerten on clay but still lost 3 less matches on the surface.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by TMF

But Fed beat him when he was a kid, so they are 1-1 overall h2h. You don't know how they would fare if both were playing in the sam era, same prime years.

Except that on clay Kuerten would win more often than not. Undoubtably the better clay courter, more accomplished clay courter despite playing in a deeper clay era and having his career cut well short by injury, and who indisputably ranks higher in history than Federer on that surface.

[kiki]

Federer ahead of Kodes? 2 titles vs 1?

While Kuerten may be as good as Lendl or Wilander on any given day on clay and even beter, Lendl and Wilander have a better overall record with a better opposition than the transition era Kuerten dominated.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Federer ahead of Kodes? 2 titles vs 1?

While Kuerten may be as good as Lendl or Wilander on any given day on clay and even beter, Lendl and Wilander have a better overall record with a better opposition than the transition era Kuerten dominated.

Overall Lendl's record is superior to Kuerten's on clay. No doubt about that but I think Kuerten's best on clay is better than Lendl's. Just an opinion.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Overall Lendl's record is superior to Kuerten's on clay. No doubt about that but I think Kuerten's best on clay is better than Lendl's. Just an opinion.

I´d say that none of both would be favourite against the other on any given match on clay.Both could win it, depending on mood, mind state, court and wind conditions and some other untangibles.

Kuetren may look better since he specialised on clay, while Lendl, whose primary results were on clay, soon evolved into a hard courter and indoor courter sort of player, that makes his record on clay pale in comparison.

[Gizo]

Originally Posted by kiki

I´d say that none of both would be favourite against the other on any given match on clay.Both could win it, depending on mood, mind state, court and wind conditions and some other untangibles.

Kuetren may look better since he specialised on clay, while Lendl, whose primary results were on clay, soon evolved into a hard courter and indoor courter sort of player, that makes his record on clay pale in comparison.

That's a good point. You are right that sometimes with players who are so much better on clay than other surfaces like Kuerten, Muster etc, their clay court level stands out a lot more. With Lendl who was at a similar level on carpet, hard and clay (you can argue that clay was only his 3rd best surface), maybe his clay court level didn't stand out so much.

I do think that Lendl's level of play when he destroyed Wilander in his 1984 RG semi-final, stormed to the 1986 RG title only dropping one set etc, was incredibly good, and that really the only players of the open era who have produced a noticeably higher standard of clay court tennis have been Nadal and Borg.

I think that Kuerten/Lendl or a Kuerten/Wilander match-ups on clay would be pretty even, although in terms of greatness those two both clearly have a better set of clay court achievements and are greater than Guga on the surface.

[kiki]

Gizo,

Lendl was raised on carpet but played a lot on clay and won his first GP titles on that surface, although he also won a few ones on hard and indoors ( beating Borg in those 2 finals).

His problem was , as he got a better indoor and hard court player, round 82,83,84 he lost patience and did not enjoyed cc tennis for those 3 years, even if he won the RG event in 1984, beating peakest Mac and a very very strong Wilander.

it took some Roche´s and Gym habits, to squeeze out any dark clouds on his head regarding clay, and by 1986 till 1988 or 1988 he regained top clay court form.

At the end of his career, from 1989 to 1993 or 1994, however, he became unpatient again and did not enjoy clay, in the same way as in 1981-83 where Wilander,Noah, Clerc had better cc results than Lendl.I think afther the 1989 match vs Chang at Paris he decided that concetrating on clay was not worthy and he gave his best trying to win that elusive Wimbledon title for 3 years.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Found your list excellent but miss Segura!

Ah yes: Little Pancho.

A definite oversight.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Ah yes: Little Pancho.

A definite oversight.

Thanks. I still wonder that a 41 years old Segura was able to win a series of claycourt tournaments against tough competition. In the early 1950s he must have been awesome on clay.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by pc1

As we all know, he also beat peak Federer at the French when he (Kuerten) was over the hill.

Federer wasn't really at his clay court peak though. That was around 2006.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Federer wasn't really at his clay court peak though. That was around 2006.

Federer had just won Hamburg for the second time, beating Coria in the final by the score of 4-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-3. Going into that 2004 Hamburg final against Federer, Coria had won his previous 31 matches on clay. Although Coria entered the 2004 French Open as the favourite, Federer was seen as his biggest challenger.

[NadalAgassi]

I thought 2004-2007 was Federer's designated prime, peak, everything else, while he was a baby in diapers in 03 or earlier and a gimpy old man with a can at 26 from 2008 and beyond. Now suddenly 2004 is designated as not being his clay court prime as well, whatever.

Whether 2004 was Federer at his career best on clay or not one thing is for sure he was a hell of alot closer than Kuerten was. If barely beating a 30 year old Sampras in the midst of a 25 month tournament drought deep into a 5th set at Wimbledon is somehow inrefutable proof Federer is superior to Sampras on grass according to ****s, than a hip butchered Kuerten who was 30% of his old self massacring the #1 Federer in straight sets couldnt make it anymore obvious that Kuerten >>>> Federer on clay. Not that one needs this evidence, their records speak for themselves too, one is a 3 time Roland Garros Champion and the Worlds best clay courter for about 3 years, one is a 1 time Roland Garros Champ who never won Rome or Monte Carlo, and who was never considered the games best clay courter.

I would love to see Federer win a Roland Garros title having the draw Kuerten in 1997 did, let alone doing it nowhere near his prime which Kuerten wasnt in 1997. Instead before Djokovic comes around he only needs to overcome Davydenko, Ferrer, and Monfils to make the Roland Garros finals every year.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I thought 2004-2007 was Federer's designated prime, peak, everything else, while he was a baby in diapers in 03 or earlier and a gimpy old man with a can at 26 from 2008 and beyond. Now suddenly 2004 is designated as not being his clay court prime as well, whatever.

Whether 2004 was Federer at his career best on clay or not one thing is for sure he was a hell of alot closer than Kuerten was. If barely beating a 30 year old Sampras in the midst of a 25 month tournament drought deep into a 5th set at Wimbledon is somehow inrefutable proof Federer is superior to Sampras on grass according to ****s, than a hip butchered Kuerten who was 30% of his old self massacring the #1 Federer in straight sets couldnt make it anymore obvious that Kuerten >>>> Federer on clay. Not that one needs this evidence, their records speak for themselves too, one is a 3 time Roland Garros Champion and the Worlds best clay courter for about 3 years, one is a 1 time Roland Garros Champ who never won Rome or Monte Carlo, and who was never considered the games best clay courter.

I would love to see Federer win a Roland Garros title having the draw Kuerten in 1997 did, let alone doing it nowhere near his prime which Kuerten wasnt in 1997. Instead before Djokovic comes around he only needs to overcome Davydenko, Ferrer, and Monfils to make the Roland Garros finals every year.

1. Nobody thinks that. It's a strawman.

2. Kuerten >>>> Federer? Please. More like >> at best.

3. I doubt Kuerten would've done that much damage against Nadal either.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by dangalak

1. Nobody thinks that. It's a strawman.

2. Kuerten >>>> Federer? Please. More like >> at best.

3. I doubt Kuerten would've done that much damage against Nadal either.

1. Again it is obvious you are new here. MANY ****s think this and have said it repeatedly using almost those exact words.

2. Either way Federer is clearly above Federer on clay. Only a delusional **** would think otherwise.

3. Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldnt have. Frankly I am sick to death of the Nadal argument for Federer. People say poor Federer having to play Nadal on clay, nobody bothers to look at who Federer has actually beaten over the years at Roland Garros and it is hardly much of anyone apart from Djokovic in 2011, his one and only impressive win there ever. Anyway by that logic we would say Nadal is one of the best grass courters ever since he would have 4 Wimbledons without Federer, but nobody would say that, which just proves how stupid that line of logic is.

Kuerten might well have done so real damage to Nadal. His backhand is deadly and can handle heavy topspin easily so that would be one place Nadal can go with great success vs Federer he wouldnt be able to do effectively vs Guga.