Clay Court GOAT

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by abmk

in 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 - pannatta
78 - ramirez, vilas
79 - gerulatis, pecci
80 - solomon, gerulatis
81 - pecci, lendl


in RGs, 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 ....

Yes Orantes, Ramirez, Solomon, Gerulaitis, Pecci, are such scary clay courters Nadal would have dreaded facing, ROTFL!! Federer and Djokovic alone are worth more than that whole group put together. Still weak clay competition compared to eras like the ones Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten, played in, in both cases. Everyone concedes Nadal the clay court GOAT today, it isnt even a debate any longer, deal with it.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by abmk

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 ...

I can't argue with too much conviction against your opinions of Muster and Courier. But, I have seen them play on clay. And both were as brutally intense grinders who have ever played, and would have wins against anyone in history on clay. It's a close call.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yes Ramirez, Solomon, Gerulaitis, Pecci, are such scary clay courters Nadal would have dreaded facing, ROTFL!! Federer and Djokovic alone are worth more than that whole group put together. Still weak clay competition compared to eras like the ones Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten, played in, in both cases. Everyone concedes Nadal the clay court GOAT today, it isnt even a debate any longer, deal with it.

uhh, no ... djoker isn't better than lendl/panatta/vilas on clay , federer isn't better than lendl on clay either ....

Notice that I mentioned puerta/almagro for nadal as well ....because they were playing well ...

the question was the fields that borg/nadal faced ..... you stated that borg's was weaker just like that ... I don't think that is the case at all ...

as far as CC GOAT is concerned, nadal has the most convincing case and probably is , but borg is pretty close ....

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yes Orantes, Ramirez, Solomon, Gerulaitis, Pecci, are such scary clay courters Nadal would have dreaded facing, ROTFL!! Federer and Djokovic alone are worth more than that whole group put together. Still weak clay competition compared to eras like the ones Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten, played in, in both cases. Everyone concedes Nadal the clay court GOAT today, it isnt even a debate any longer, deal with it.

Harold Solomon was a nightmare on clay. He made opponents feel like they were drowning in moonballs. He even made Borg lose his patience and go for winners just to end a point. I can see even the great Nadal suffering a loss or two to Solomon. Orantes, Ramirez, Gerulaitis and Pecci were all court touch players who had nothing to hurt Nadal with, IMO.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

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 ...

Franulovic was a beter clay courter than Soderling and Nastase a much better player, any court or surface.Kodes has 2 RG and Fed 1.

The other surface majors were played was grass, but here we cannot compare since past grass and current grass, the only thing they got in common is the green colour...

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by abmk

uhh, no ... djoker isn't better than lendl/panatta/vilas on clay , federer isn't better than lendl on clay either ....

Prime Federer >>>> 1981 version of Lendl (light years from his prime). 5 years of Federer >>>>> 1 year of Lendl. In the case you think one year of baby Lendl is tougher than many years of prime or slam winning Federer, you must really think Federer is not even a top 50 clay courter of all time then, lol! Djokovic's career is far from over and you are comparing him to retired players who you are evaluating based on their finished achievements. Djokovic is quite likely to end up as a better clay courter than Panatta and Vilas, if he wins atleast 1 RG he almost certainly will be. Djokovic at RG has only lost to Nadal and once to Federer every year since 2006 except for one. Vilas at RG lost to a slew of weaker players, was blown out by Vilas and lost to a 17 year old Wilander in 2 of his finals, and won his RG title in a joke boycotted year where his final opponent was Gottfried. Panatta is not considered some super great clay courter and never was, just a tough matchup for Borg. I would be willing to bet money Djokovic atleast 5 different years wins RG with Vilas's 77 draw, his 2007-2012 version in 1977-1982 has a better RG record overall than Vilas, and so on.

No Lendl in 1981 and Mickey Mouse tournament hoarder Vilas is not tougher competition on clay than years of Federer and Djokovic.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

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 ...

Can you explain me which is the relation between Federer ( and Kuerten) and the concept of " attacking player" ?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Franulovic was a beter clay courter than Soderling and Nastase a much better player, any court or surface.Kodes has 2 RG and Fed 1.

The other surface majors were played was grass, but here we cannot compare since past grass and current grass, the only thing they got in common is the green colour...

how was franulovic a better CC player than soderling ? who of significance did he beat at RG ?

soderling beat nadal and federer ... his runs at RG 2009 and RG 2010 were brilliant and nothing franulovic did comes close ......... but then you'd only know if you watched tennis .......

[abmk]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Prime Federer >>>> 1981 version of Lendl (light years from his prime). 5 years of Federer >>>>> 1 year of Lendl. In the case you think one year of baby Lendl is tougher than many years of prime or slam winning Federer, you must really think Federer is not even a top 50 clay courter of all time then, lol! Djokovic's career is far from over and he is likely to end up as a better clay courter than Panatta and Vilas, if he wins atleast 1 RG he almost certainly will be. Djokovic at RG has only lost to Nadal and once to Federer every year since 2006 except for one. Vilas at RG lost to a slew of weaker players, was blown out by Vilas and lost to a 17 year old Wilander in 2 of his finals, and won his RG title in a joke boycotted year where his final opponent was Gottfried. Panatta is not considered some super great clay courter and never was, just a tough matchup for Borg.

No Lendl in 1981 and Mickey Mouse tournament hoarder Vilas is not tougher competition on clay than years of Federer and Djokovic.

in 2009, djoker lost to kohlscreiber
in 2010 , he lost to melzer

so no, it wasn't just one year ..... djoker wasn't that good in 2007 either ...

pretty sure even a 17 year old Wilander was wayyy better than both melzer/kohlschreiber ...

panatta may not be a "great" CC player, but he was pretty good and as you said he was a tough matchup for borg, which such player is for nadal ? not 2008 RG djoker, not 2012 RG djoker ..... 2011 djoker would be , but federer took him out .....

peak federer is better than 81 lendl, but then the matchup factor negates that a bit .... take the matchup factor vs panatta as well into consideration

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by abmk

in 2009, djoker lost to kohlscreiber
in 2010 , he lost to melzer

pretty sure even a 17 year old Wilander was wayyy better than both ...

panatta may not be a "great" CC player, but as you said he was a tough matchup for borg, which such player is for nadal ? not 2008 RG djoker, not 2012 RG djoker ..... 2011 djoker would be , but federer took him out .....

Roland Garros 1982 is one of Vilas's 3 best Roland Garros's as it is one of the only 3 he ever made the final, and he still lost to 17 year old Wilander. Djokovic in his 5 best Roland Garros's has lost to only Federer or Nadal.

Vilas was blown away and fed a bagel to end a striaght sets defeat by Pecci in 1979, and was beaten up by Solomon in 1976, eating two breadsticks in a 4 set defeat. Those are his 4th and 5th best RG performances.

Djokovic was always a tough matchup for Nadal, even on clay. In 2008 he was already a way tougher clay opponent for Nadal than Federer was. LOL at you only giving him credit as being a tough matchup for Nadal when he beats him regularly. By your logic Panatta was only a tough matchup for pre prime (before 1977) Borg and is even less of one.

Originally Posted by abmk

peak federer is better than 81 lendl, but then the matchup factor negates that a bit .... take the matchup factor vs panatta as well into consideration

Even if it negates it a bit, Nadal faced Federer 5 years (prime Federer atleast 3 of those, once as an 18 year old), so that easily puts him over just 1 year of a pre prime Lendl, so overall as far as competition years of Federer >>>>> 1 year of Lendl. There is no evidence Panatta is any tougher a matchup for Borg on clay than Djokovic is for Nadal. At this point you are just spinning your wheels, you were wrong, plain and simple.

[BobbyOne]

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.

I again agree.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Roland Garros 1982 is one of Vilas's 3 best Roland Garros's as it is one of the only 3 he ever made the final, and he still lost to 17 year old Wilander. Djokovic in his 5 best Roland Garros's has lost to only Federer or Nadal.

Vilas was blown away and fed a bagel to end a striaght sets defeat by Pecci in 1979, and was beaten up by Solomon in 1976, eating two breadsticks. Those are his 4th and 5th best RG performances.

Djokovic was always a tough matchup for Nadal, even on clay. In 2008 he was already a way tougher clay opponent for Nadal than Federer was. LOL at you only giving him credit as being a tough matchup for Nadal when he beats him regularly. By your logic Panatta was only a tough matchup for pre prime (before 1977) Borg and is even less of one.

djokovic did play really well in hamburg 2008 vs nadal and in the 2009 CC masters (rome and madrid) , but he played quite a bit below that level in 2008 RG ....

in 2012 RG, he was very inconsistent ......

panatta also took borg to 5 sets in 78 in a CC match IIRC ...

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

There is no evidence Panatta is any tougher a matchup for Borg on clay than Djokovic is for Nadal. At this point you are just spinning your wheels, you were wrong, plain and simple.

at RG, I would say there clearly is and the matches/stats clearly point to that ......

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by abmk

uhh, no ... djoker isn't better than lendl/panatta/vilas on clay , federer isn't better than lendl on clay either ....

Notice that I mentioned puerta/almagro for nadal as well ....because they were playing well ...

the question was the fields that borg/nadal faced ..... you stated that borg's was weaker just like that ... I don't think that is the case at all ...

as far as CC GOAT is concerned, nadal has the most convincing case and probably is , but borg is pretty close ....

Abmk is (as usual) quite correct in his opinions here.

Lendl is easily top-10 on clay. Fed is second-10. It is not close.

As for CC GOAT: Nadal is no. 1, Borg is no. 2. It is very, very close.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yes Orantes, Ramirez, Solomon, Gerulaitis, Pecci, are such scary clay courters Nadal would have dreaded facing, ROTFL!! Federer and Djokovic alone are worth more than that whole group put together. Still weak clay competition compared to eras like the ones Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten, played in, in both cases. Everyone concedes Nadal the clay court GOAT today, it isnt even a debate any longer, deal with it.

Orantes has a far greater record on cc than Djokovic;Gerulaitis a better one and Pecci has an equivalent record.If Djokovic beat Nadal, Victor did beat Borg.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

uhh, no ... djoker isn't better than lendl/panatta/vilas on clay , federer isn't better than lendl on clay either ....

Notice that I mentioned puerta/almagro for nadal as well ....because they were playing well ...

the question was the fields that borg/nadal faced ..... you stated that borg's was weaker just like that ... I don't think that is the case at all ...

as far as CC GOAT is concerned, nadal has the most convincing case and probably is , but borg is pretty close ....

You are a true lost cause.

Panatta won the FO ( beat Borg twice at RG, though you may not know who Borg was), Vilas won the FO and many other major cc events and Lendl won 3 RG titles, that is 2 more than Fed/Djoker combined.

Kodes won 2 FO to Fed 1 and Djokovic 0.

You are lowering your country´s inteligence average which each passing post...and you´re country is huge.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

You are a true lost cause.

Panatta won the FO ( beat Borg twice at RG, though you may not know who Borg was), Vilas won the FO and many other major cc events and Lendl won 3 RG titles, that is 2 more than Fed/Djoker combined.

Kodes won 2 FO to Fed 1 and Djokovic 0.

You are lowering your country´s inteligence average which each passing post...and you´re country is huge.

dumbo kiki, learn to read ...

here again , bolded for you :

Originally Posted by abmk

uhh, no ... djoker isn't better than lendl/panatta/vilas on clay , federer isn't better than lendl on clay either ....

you fail again, as usual .......bah !

what exactly do you know btw ? you can't read, have near zero knowledge of tennis, can't compose sentences in English properly, make the same spelling mistakes time and again, even though many post the correct spellings ......... are you really that thick or just pretend to be ?

and finally federer > kodes on clay and by some distance ......

federer has 1 RG, 4 other RG finals ( losing only to nadal in them ) and 5 CC masters and a total of 10 clay court titles, which is 2 more than the the total number of titles that Kodes won in his entire career .......

[jean pierre]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Prime Federer >>>> 1981 version of Lendl (light years from his prime). 5 years of Federer >>>>> 1 year of Lendl. In the case you think one year of baby Lendl is tougher than many years of prime or slam winning Federer, you must really think Federer is not even a top 50 clay courter of all time then, lol! Djokovic's career is far from over and you are comparing him to retired players who you are evaluating based on their finished achievements. Djokovic is quite likely to end up as a better clay courter than Panatta and Vilas, if he wins atleast 1 RG he almost certainly will be. Djokovic at RG has only lost to Nadal and once to Federer every year since 2006 except for one. Vilas at RG lost to a slew of weaker players, was blown out by Vilas and lost to a 17 year old Wilander in 2 of his finals, and won his RG title in a joke boycotted year where his final opponent was Gottfried. Panatta is not considered some super great clay courter and never was, just a tough matchup for Borg. I would be willing to bet money Djokovic atleast 5 different years wins RG with Vilas's 77 draw, his 2007-2012 version in 1977-1982 has a better RG record overall than Vilas, and so on.

No Lendl in 1981 and Mickey Mouse tournament hoarder Vilas is not tougher competition on clay than years of Federer and Djokovic.

Djokovic better than Vilas on clay ? I can't believe it. Vilas won 45 tournaments on clay (this is the record), won 2 Grand Slams on clay (FO and USO) and all major tournaments on this surface (Rome, Madrid, Monte-Carlo, Hamburg ...). I don't think FO 77 was a joke. Vilas beated Fibak, Ramirez, and Gottfried, who were top ten players (+ Stan Smith, a Grand Slam winner). Gottfried was n°4 at that time, and beated Borg in the beginning of the year. In USO, on clay, Vilas beated Higueras, Solomon and Connors. I think Vilas is much much better than Djoko on clay.

[NadalAgassi]

At this moment Vilas is officialy "greater" than Djokovic on clay because of the numbers. However Djokovic is only halfway through his career, Vilas's career is long over. Lets wait until Djokovic's career is nearly over then compare. If Djokovic wins a French, and he should win one, he will rank over Vilas on clay probably. His French Open record would be better by then, I already mentioned how Vilas only had 3 decent French Opens ever, and he is likely to end up winning atleast as many Masters type events than Vilas in his career too. I dont care how many tiny events in some remote part of the World Vilas won while purposely ducking Borg, Vilas was the Muster of the mid 90s in that sense, except unlike Muster who was by far the Worlds best clay courter for 2 years (despite his 96 RG flop), Vilas was never considered the best, not even in 1977 did people consider him better than Borg on red clay anyway, so someone like Muster is even clearly superior to Vilas on clay due to his decisive 2 year reign, even if his RG record is even worse. I actually expect Djokovic will end up being considered over Federer on clay by the time his career is over, although this is less certain.

As for who is the better or tougher to face, I would say Djokovic hands down. Just look at Vilas's scores over the years vs Borg on clay, absolutely pathetic. Contrast that to Djokovic vs Nadal over the years on clay, often winning a set, winning 2 matches in straight sets, having match points in another, all vs prime Nadal. I also cant see Djokovic being as hopeless year after year vs Borg on clay as Vilas was, and no way would Vilas push Nadal as hard on clay as Djokovic has. I also dont see Djokovic if he is playing well enough to reach a final losing to a 17 year old nowhere near his prime Wilander in his debut slam final. I could go on forever basically.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Lendl is easily top-10 on clay. Fed is second-10. It is not close.

I agree and yet completely irrelevant to my point as well. Borg only played a far from prime Lendl once at the French (and barely won, taking 5 sets), then retired, this was his only brush with Lendl as opposition there. Nadal played a prime Federer atleast 3 times, and a slam winning caliber Federer on 5 occasions at the French. The latter is much more opposition to face than the former, and their respective overall clay careers and places in history on the surface are irrelevant to that. Even for a rare individual who thinks 1981 version of Lendl 3 years away from winning a slam is already better than Federer on clay, it still wouldnt matter, facing 5 times is worth more than facing only 1 time.

Also for what it is worth I would be surprised if abmk concurs with you Federer is only in the second 10 in history on clay.

[Mustard]

Vilas is a long way in front of Djokovic on clay.