Clay Court GOAT

[Gizo]

Delete post

[Gizo]

Hamburg 2004 was one the most impressive masters series triumphs of Federer's career. He beat Gaudio, Lapentti, Gonzalez, Moya, Hewitt and Coria to win that title. Coria, Gaudio and Moya were the 3 best players in the world on clay in 2004, and Gonzalez, Lapentti and Hewitt were dangerous/respectable opponents on the surface. So he went into that 3rd round match against Kuerten in good form.

It is just an opinion but I do think that Kuerten could have had an interesting rivalry with the Nadal of 2005-2006 on clay, and fared better against him than Federer did in those years. I think that he would have been overmatched against the scarily good Nadal of 2008 though.

And I agree that Kuerten is clearly above Federer in the clay court standings. 2 extra RG titles (including a successful title defence) is a very significant difference. Over the years I've seen some blind Federer worshippers (and not his many reasonable and fair-minded fans) ranking him as the third (or even second) greatest player on clay of all-time, which has been comical beyond belief.

[hoodjem]

^^^
Fed as the third or second greatest clay-courter?

Yes, that is hilarious.

[Limpinhitter]

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.

Wrong again, TMFVI.

[Mustard]

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.

Kuerten leads 2-1 in their head-to-head, having also beaten Federer at 2003 Indian Wells. And if you're going to say that Federer, as a "kid", beat Kuerten, then it's only fair to point out that Kuerten had his first hip surgery in February 2002.

[Down_the_line]

Easily Nadal.

I've made this point a few times already and I'll say it again: Since 2005, Nadal has captured 7 of 8 French Open titles, all 8 Monte Carlo Masters titles and 6 of 8 Rome Masters titles. Those are what I believe to be the 3 most prestigious clay court events of the season. That's some serious domination right there. That's a total of 3 losses in 24 events, or 21 titles out of 24 events. Crazy.

His three losses:

Lost to Ferrero in the 2nd round of the 2008 Rome Masters

Lost to Soderling in the round of 16 at the 2009 French Open

Lost to Djokovic in the final of the 2011 Rome Masters

He's also won 7 of 8 Barcelona titles in that time. The one year he didn't win, in 2010, he withdrew due to fatigue.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by Gizo

Hamburg 2004 was one the most impressive masters series triumphs of Federer's career. He beat Gaudio, Lapentti, Gonzalez, Moya, Hewitt and Coria to win that title. Coria, Gaudio and Moya were the 3 best players in the world on clay in 2004, and Gonzalez, Lapentti and Hewitt were dangerous/respectable opponents on the surface. So he went into that 3rd round match against Kuerten in good form.

It is just an opinion but I do think that Kuerten could have had an interesting rivalry with the Nadal of 2005-2006 on clay, and fared better against him than Federer did in those years. I think that he would have been overmatched against the scarily good Nadal of 2008 though.

And I agree that Kuerten is clearly above Federer in the clay court standings. 2 extra RG titles (including a successful title defence) is a very significant difference. Over the years I've seen some blind Federer worshippers (and not his many reasonable and fair-minded fans) ranking him as the third (or even second) greatest player on clay of all-time, which has been comical beyond belief.

If someone puts Federer over Kuerten and Borg is completely delusional. Borg has 6 RG titles.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Kuerten leads 2-1 in their head-to-head, having also beaten Federer at 2003 Indian Wells. And if you're going to say that Federer, as a "kid", beat Kuerten, then it's only fair to point out that Kuerten had his first hip surgery in February 2002.

I'm talking about they are 1-1 on clay since this is about clay court goat thread. Limpin is clueless.

If they both are at the same age competing in the same era, I think Fed would beat him more often. The problem is with you people think that if Fed can't beat Nadal on clay, then he's automatically below Guga, Lendl, etc. That's not how it works because everyone in their right mind knows those guys wouldn't beat Nadal either.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

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

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

True, Kuerten has to be considered past his prime in 2004. The damage to his hip meant that he wasn't going to produce his former tennis from day to day and particularly in long matches in which he'd be forced to do a lot of running.

But I think it's dead wrong to imply that the level of tennis he produced against Federer in the '04 match, over three relatively brief sets, was nowhere close to his prime tennis.

Against Federer he had more winners than unforced errors: 29 to 25.

That was not true in his French Open final victories in 2000 and 2001. In 2000, against Norman, he had 47 winners and 72 unforced errors. The next year against Corretja he had 55 winners and 55 UE.

The reason is that Kuerten, bad hip and all, was still capable of closing out matches in 3 sets if he could overwhelm his opponent with a ton of winners. That seems to have been his strategy against Federer. When Kuerten got off the court he said that finishing the match in three sets was his only chance -- an obvious allusion to how his hip -- or his poor stamina, at that time -- would not have held up in a long match.

The next round he pulled off the same strategy against Feliciano Lopez, beating him in straights with 29 winners and 26 UE.

That's not to say that these performance in '04 were as good as what he produced in his prime. For purposes of what we're debating here -- whether the tennis he produced against Federer was miles below his former best -- it's enough to show that those performances were comparable to his championship performances in his prime.

In fact John Barrett said that he hadn't seen Kuerten play so well since he won the French in '01.

That's possible, despite Kuerten's hip problems, because for three sets, particularly if he set out to do so, he could produce a ton of winners and get off the court quickly, with his opponent thrown off balance from the start and not allowed to get into the match.

I've seen the match, and that's essentially what happened. Federer was swept off the court. One article in the press said that Federer's only chance against what Kuerten produced would have been to test the hip; but they added that he served too poorly to do that. All true. In a longer match, if Federer had sunk his teeth into the match and started testing both Kuerten's hip and his stamina, you would probably have seen a very different story.

I want to be clear, though: peak to peak, Kuerten is superior to Federer. Even at his best Federer is going to lose more often to a Kuerten who's got a good hip and can play for as long as he needs to.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

I think so too. Push comes to shove I'll take Nadal over Kuerten; but Kuerten would do more damage to Nadal than Federer has.

[ARFED]

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.

The problem using this kind of logic is that it is detrimental to Nadal`s position as the CCGOAT. Federer has been Nadal biggest rival on the surface by far, so accepting the premise that Federer is no more than a decent clay court player, how can you not put in doubt Nadal`s succes on clay?? After all, and according to you, which great clay courter has faced Nadal to achieve his titles if not federer??...surely must have been clay beasts like Almagro, Monaco, Ferrer, Verdasco, Soderling, Puerta, Davydenko, Gonzalez, etc.
Borg on the other hand faced Lendl, Vilas, Panatta,Nastase, Kodes, Clerc, Orantes, etc, all of them would easily have Federer for breakfast on clay.
The thing is that both, Nadal and Federer legacy, feed off each other. You can`t downgrade one without afecting the other, it has always been this way (Laver-Rosewall, Borg-Mac, Sampras-Agassi, etc).
However, i do think that Kuerten is the best clay courter compared to Fed, by achivements and level of play (this by a very small margin). The only ones i would put above Fed during the open era are Nadal, Borg, Wilander, Lendl and Kuerten in that order. I put him above Courier, Vilas, Muster, Bruguera, Nastase and Kodes.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

True, Kuerten has to be considered past his prime in 2004. The damage to his hip meant that he wasn't going to produce his former tennis from day to day and particularly in long matches in which he'd be forced to do a lot of running.

But I think it's dead wrong to imply that the level of tennis he produced against Federer in the '04 match, over three relatively brief sets, was nowhere close to his prime tennis.

Against Federer he had more winners than unforced errors: 29 to 25.

That was not true in his French Open final victories in 2000 and 2001. In 2000, against Norman, he had 47 winners and 72 unforced errors. The next year against Corretja he had 55 winners and 55 UE.

The reason is that Kuerten, bad hip and all, was still capable of closing out matches in 3 sets if he could overwhelm his opponent with a ton of winners. That seems to have been his strategy against Federer. When Kuerten got off the court he said that finishing the match in three sets was his only chance -- an obvious allusion to how his hip -- or his poor stamina, at that time -- would not have held up in a long match.

The next round he pulled off the same strategy against Feliciano Lopez, beating him in straights with 29 winners and 26 UE.

That's not to say that these performance in '04 were as good as what he produced in his prime. For purposes of what we're debating here -- whether the tennis he produced against Federer was miles below his former best -- it's enough to show that those performances were comparable to his championship performances in his prime.

In fact John Barrett said that he hadn't seen Kuerten play so well since he won the French in '01.

That's possible, despite Kuerten's hip problems, because for three sets, particularly if he set out to do so, he could produce a ton of winners and get off the court quickly, with his opponent thrown off balance from the start and not allowed to get into the match.

I've seen the match, and that's essentially what happened. Federer was swept off the court. One article in the press said that Federer's only chance against what Kuerten produced would have been to test the hip; but they added that he served too poorly to do that. All true. In a longer match, if Federer had sunk his teeth into the match and started testing both Kuerten's hip and his stamina, you would probably have seen a very different story.

I want to be clear, though: peak to peak, Kuerten is superior to Federer. Even at his best Federer is going to lose more often to a Kuerten who's got a good hip and can play for as long as he needs to.

I think so too. Push comes to shove I'll take Nadal over Kuerten; but Kuerten would do more damage to Nadal than Federer has.

It is ridiculous.Panatta won his RG with a win over cc goat candidate Bjorn Borg while Federer beat a bunch of journeymen.Panatta above fed on clay, since he also won the much coveted Italian Open and a DC title on clay.

Jan Kodes has 2 FO wins as opposed to Fed´s single one.

[Wilander Fan]

Fed is basically the best one time RG champion and if he win another he will be the best 2 time RG champion. All things being said, 1 RG and the multiple finals is enough for his legacy as GOAT...not to mention history will always remember he kept running into Nadal.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

It is ridiculous.Panatta won his RG with a win over cc goat candidate Bjorn Borg while Federer beat a bunch of journeymen.Panatta above fed on clay, since he also won the much coveted Italian Open and a DC title on clay.

Jan Kodes has 2 FO wins as opposed to Fed´s single one.

federer beat del potro and soderling back to back to win - neither of them journeymen ......del potro played brilliantly and soderling had played brilliantly to get to to the final ( beating nadal on the way )

Put fed in kodes's shoes and he wins FO 70,71 and 72 easily and has a very realistic shot at 73 FO depending on how the contest with nastase goes ....

fed as a CC player is by some distance better than kodes ...

[abmk]

in terms of achievements in the open era : nadal, borg, lendl, wilander, kuerten are clearly better than fed .... but IMO, out of those only those 3 are clearly better in terms of peak level of play on clay : nadal, borg and kuerten

it'd be very close as far as the likes of bruguera, courier, muster, vilas, ferrero etc go ....

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by abmk

in terms of achievements in the open era : nadal, borg, lendl, wilander, kuerten are clearly better than fed .... but IMO, out of those only those 3 are clearly better in terms of peak level of play on clay : nadal, borg and kuerten

it'd be very close as far as the likes of bruguera, courier, muster, vilas, ferrero etc go ....

I like to talk about peak level of play in rating the greatness of players throughout history on an absolute basis. But, the notion of peak level of play and clay court tennis are almost irreconcilable with each other. It's a difficult concept to use to rate clay court players, because clay is a game of attrition. Clay court tennis is such a neutralizer of the kind of greatness it takes to win on grass, hard and carpet. I would agree that at Federer's peak level of play on clay (which requires a different mindset than Federer's peak level on grass and would not win him a single Wimbledon title), he might have been better than all but Nadal, Borg & Kuerten. But, that mindset and style of play was not Federer's forte. And I have doubts that he would have a winning record on clay over the course of a career against Lendl, Wilander, Courier and Muster. They were grinders on every surface they played on, and clay rewards their approach to the game and punishes those whose approach deviates from that mindset.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I like to talk about peak level of play in rating the greatness of players throughout history on an absolute basis. But, the notion of peak level of play and clay court tennis are almost irreconcilable with each other. It's a difficult concept to use to rate clay court players, because clay is a game of attrition. Clay court tennis is such a neutralizer of the kind of greatness it takes to win on grass, hard and carpet. I would agree that at Federer's peak level of play on clay (which requires a different mindset than Federer's peak level on grass and would not win him a single Wimbledon title), he might have been better than all but Nadal, Borg & Kuerten. But, that mindset and style of play was not Federer's forte. And I have doubts that he would have a winning record on clay over the course of a career against Lendl, Wilander, Courier and Muster. They were grinders on every surface they played on, and clay rewards their approach to the game and punishes those whose approach deviates from that mindset.

lendl and wilander maybe , but courier and muster had short clay court prime careers and federer has had a much longer CC prime than them both ....

while it is true that clay blunts the attacking game the most doesn't mean attacking players can't have success. See kuerten/federer/laver for examples ...

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by ARFED

[/b]

The problem using this kind of logic is that it is detrimental to Nadal`s position as the CCGOAT.

No it is not. The only one relatively close to him in clay court achievements is Borg who faced an even weaker clay field. Next.

Originally Posted by ARFED

]The thing is that both, Nadal and Federer legacy, feed off each other. You can`t downgrade one without afecting the other

By this stupid logic one would have to rank Nadal a top 5 or top 3 grass court and hard court player all time in order to justify the claims Federer is the GOAT on those surfaces.

Nadal has proven he is light years ahead of Federer on clay. He does not have to justify anything via wherever Federer is ranked on clay, which seeing the huge gap between the two on the surface can only be extremely far apart, which already negates any fantasy of many Federer fanboys have that Federer is a top 3 clay courter all time or anything near that.

Originally Posted by ARFED

Borg on the other hand faced Lendl, Vilas, Panatta,Nastase, Kodes, Clerc, Orantes, etc, all of them would easily have Federer for breakfast on clay.............................. The only ones i would put above Fed during the open era are Nadal, Borg, Wilander, Lendl and Kuerten in that order.

My that is a contradiction if there ever was. Borg did not really face Lendl, they played one year Lendl was FAR from his prime, and in fact 3 years from his first major, they were about as close of being contemporaries as Nadal and Kuerten were. Tennis existed before the Open Era so even if you were right (IMO 6th in the Open Era is generous but plausible, he would rank higher than Mickey Mouse tournament hoarder Vilas that is for sure) pre Open Era greats like Laver, Rosewall, Cochet, LaCoste, Wilding, and others would easily push Federer out of the top 10 all time on clay.

[Gizo]

I think that Federer would have a winning h2h against Muster on clay.

We all know that even on clay Muster had a very poor set of h2hs against serve-volleyers, but he could struggle against strong attacking baseline games on the surface as well.

Stylistically the most similar player to Federer from the 90s was Michael Stich, who had a 2-2 record against Muster on clay, winning their most important match at RG in 1996. In that 1996 match, Stich didn't serve volley that much at all, and stayed back a lot and attacked from the baseline, and that threw Muster off his game.

I think that Federer's attacking baseline game and occasionally forays to the net would cause Muster a lot of problems.
Now Sergi Bruguera and his vicious topspin would cause Federer a lot of problems on clay I think.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

No it is not. The only one relatively close to him in clay court achievements is Borg who faced an even weaker clay field. Next.

@ RGs, the players of note that borg faced, ( being close to decent form at the very least )

74 - ramirez,solomon,orantes
75 - solomon,panatta,vilas
76 - panatta
78 - ramirez, vilas
79 - gerulatis, pecci
80 - solomon, gerulatis
81 - pecci, lendl


@ RG, the players of note that nadal faced, ( being close to decent form at the very least )

2005 - federer,puerta
2006 - federer
2007 - federer
2008 - djoker, federer
2009 - soderling
2010 - almagro, soderling
2011 - federer
2012 - djokovic

uhh, I think its clear borg faced tougher competition ....

[NadalAgassi]

Federer would definitely have a winning record vs Muster on clay. He would lose most times to Muster of 95/96, but the other years of Muster's career he would be a relatively easy opponent for Federer on clay.