Clay Court GOAT

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

And both won Rome as well
Close call IMO
If you feel Nusslein is underrated....Imagine Santana!

Nüsslein is vastly underrated or even unknown while Santana is overrated (like Emerson). Nüsslein was strongest claycourter of the 1930s (9 claycourt majors won) while Santana was never strongest claycourter of the world: Laver, Rosewall and Gimeno were better.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Nüsslein is vastly underrated or even unknown while Santana is overrated (like Emerson). Nüsslein was strongest claycourter of the 1930s (9 claycourt majors won) while Santana was never strongest claycourter of the world: Laver, Rosewall and Gimeno were better.

Gimeni????
Santana destroyed Laver on cc at the Barcelona Open final in 1970
He won the French a couple of times, too
He is underrated and was the undisputed second best amateur of the decade
I think Gimeno was a more complete player but Santana had a winning mind that Gimeno, as great as he was, never had
How many RG did Nusslein have?
Beating guys like Plaa and similar who were mere journeymen does not speak too well of Nusslein...

[kiki]

Bobbyone, do you honestly think Nusslein to be better than good clay courters such as Guylass, Franulovic,Asboth or Luis Ayala?

[hoodjem]

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Rosewall
4. Wilding
5. Cochet
6. Lendl
7. Wilander
8. Lacoste
9. Kuerten
10. Laver
11. Borotra
12. Drobny
13. Vilas
14. Bruguera
15. Pietrangeli
16. Courier
17. Muster
18. Gimeno
19. Federer
20. Kodes
21. von Cramm
22. Santana
23. Nusslein
25. Nastase
26. Trabert
27. Orantes
28. Panatta
29. Agassi
30. Connors
31. Tilden
32. Frank Parker
33. Roche
34. Sven Davidson
35. Jack Crawford
36. Segura
37. Fred Perry
38. J.E. Patty
39. Decugis
40. Emerson

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Rosewall
4. Wilding
5. Cochet
6. Lendl
7. Wilander
8. Lacoste
9. Kuerten
10. Laver
11. Borotra
12. Drobny
13. Vilas
14. Bruguera
15. Pietrangeli
16. Courier
17. Muster
18. Gimeno
19. Federer
20. Kodes
21. von Cramm
22. Santana
23. Nusslein
25. Nastase
26. Trabert
27. Orantes
28. Panatta
29. Agassi
30. Connors
31. Tilden
32. Frank Parker
33. Roche
34. Sven Davidson
35. Jack Crawford
36. Segura
37. Fred Perry
38. J.E. Patty
39. Decugis
40. Emerson

I'm surprised to find more than forty rank between Nadal and Federer. I think the reasoning behind their ranking is not consistent. Here is why:

Federer had great results on clay: He has a leading H2H against the clay court specialist of the the early 00's like Coria, Moya or Ferrero. He has a top 10 winning percentage on clay. He has won RG once, and reached 4 finals. He won six clay master 1000, and reached 8 clay master 1000 finals. If not for one man, he would have an amazing clay palmares and winning percentage. These points are indisputable.

From here there is two possibilities:

1) He was prevented to win so much on clay by the best clay-courter ever. Despite his lack of titles on clay in comparison with other, he has to be considered higher than others who didn't have to face such an opposition (Kuerten, Agassi, Muster, in recent times). He is in this case at least a top 10 of the open era, not far all-time.

2) His opposition was weak, very weak (and there is some point in this direction, although I believe it is more complicated than that), and thus his amazing accomplishments don't compare with others, like Kuerten, Muster, Agassi, who had a far greater opposition: Federer is not a great clay courter: he played in the weaker clay era ever.

It seems that in this thread it is the second hypothesis which has been chosen. Then, how in hell can Nadal be ranked number 1? Nadal did his harvest in the exact same time span than Federer. If it is considered that Federer's accomplishment can't be taken into account because his opposition was weak, then it has to be the same for Nadal's accomplishment, for the sake of coherence! In that case, despite the fact that Nadal has won many more majors than Lendl or Wilander, many more master 1000, and has a higher winning percentage than them, why not rank him below them? Or below anyone else?

Can someone explain me the coherence of ranking these to guys so far from each others, when one win everything and the other was runner-up of everything?

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Can someone explain me the coherence of ranking these to guys so far from each others, when one win everything and the other was runner-up of everything?

Hoodjem ranked Federer at #19 all-time, I don't think that's unreasonable. Certainly I don't think he can be in the top ten all-time when you have the likes of, chronologically,

- Wilding
- Cochet
- Rosewall
- Pietrangeli
- Santana
- Gimeno
- Borg
- Vilas
- Lendl
- Wilander
- Muster
- Kuerten

and some others who I've likely forgotten.

Top 20 all-time on clay is about right for Fed. He would have won more were it not for Nadal, but having said that, he wouldn't have run riot - past clay greats like Kuerten (as he showed in the FO 2004), Lendl and Wilander would still probably have beaten him, at least some of the time.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Gimeni????
Santana destroyed Laver on cc at the Barcelona Open final in 1970
He won the French a couple of times, too
He is underrated and was the undisputed second best amateur of the decade
I think Gimeno was a more complete player but Santana had a winning mind that Gimeno, as great as he was, never had
How many RG did Nusslein have?
Beating guys like Plaa and similar who were mere journeymen does not speak too well of Nusslein...

kiki, I'm disappointed by your post. Your answers seem rather ignorant. I had thought you are a serious expert as I have written several times in defending you against true ignorants...

You cannot take ONE match as a proof that Santana was that strong. He was great as an amateur but experts knew then that Gimeno was at least as good. They seeded him third at the first open Wimbledon.

Gimeno did beat both Laver and Rosewall twice in the two 1967 big claycourt events. Are you convinced that Santana could have had those four awesome wins against prime Laver and Rosewall?

Gimeno has beaten both Laver and Rosewall at least nine times in the SAME tournaments and one of them (or the other) about 30 times!

Your question regarding Nüsslein is a kind of demagogy. You do know that Nüsslein was banned from regulary competition at 17 because he got a few D-Marks at 15 when he trained an adult.

You underrate Plaa. This guy was able to beat Tilden in the 1932 World Pro Championships. He won that event.

Nüsslein defeated in clay majors Tilden, Cochet, Vines and indirectly Budge (the latter in 1939).

He was arguably No.1 on clay in 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939!!!

Please have some consideration about my arguments.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Bobbyone, do you honestly think Nusslein to be better than good clay courters such as Guylass, Franulovic,Asboth or Luis Ayala?

kiki, You can't be serious...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Rosewall
4. Wilding
5. Cochet
6. Lendl
7. Wilander
8. Lacoste
9. Kuerten
10. Laver
11. Borotra
12. Drobny
13. Vilas
14. Bruguera
15. Pietrangeli
16. Courier
17. Muster
18. Gimeno
19. Federer
20. Kodes
21. von Cramm
22. Santana
23. Nusslein
25. Nastase
26. Trabert
27. Orantes
28. Panatta
29. Agassi
30. Connors
31. Tilden
32. Frank Parker
33. Roche
34. Sven Davidson
35. Jack Crawford
36. Segura
37. Fred Perry
38. J.E. Patty
39. Decugis
40. Emerson

hoodjem, Thanks for improving Nüsslein's place. Tilden might be underrated on clay. He won many tournaments, among them the 1921 World Hardcourt Championships and seven times the US Claycourt Ch. He beat von Cramm clearly in 1934 when being already 41...

[TMF]

Of course Fed is ranked extremely low on this forum. If you go by non-biased people the ex-players, they have Roger average around #7.

http://www2.lequipe.fr/redirect-v6/h...ote-nadal.html

[Fintft]

Originally Posted by pc1

I would throw in Nastase too.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see a peak Nastase on red clay with his speed and touch against Nadal's heavy topspin and power?

Definitely!

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, You can't be serious...

Your passion for Gimeno is moving
Did you know he could not beat Kodes?
Kodes destroyed him at his club event the year Andres won the FO and played great tennis

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

I'm surprised to find more than forty rank between Nadal and Federer. I think the reasoning behind their ranking is not consistent. Here is why:

Federer had great results on clay: He has a leading H2H against the clay court specialist of the the early 00's like Coria, Moya or Ferrero. He has a top 10 winning percentage on clay. He has won RG once, and reached 4 finals. He won six clay master 1000, and reached 8 clay master 1000 finals. If not for one man, he would have an amazing clay palmares and winning percentage. These points are indisputable.

From here there is two possibilities:

1) He was prevented to win so much on clay by the best clay-courter ever. Despite his lack of titles on clay in comparison with other, he has to be considered higher than others who didn't have to face such an opposition (Kuerten, Agassi, Muster, in recent times). He is in this case at least a top 10 of the open era, not far all-time.

2) His opposition was weak, very weak (and there is some point in this direction, although I believe it is more complicated than that), and thus his amazing accomplishments don't compare with others, like Kuerten, Muster, Agassi, who had a far greater opposition: Federer is not a great clay courter: he played in the weaker clay era ever.

It seems that in this thread it is the second hypothesis which has been chosen. Then, how in hell can Nadal be ranked number 1? Nadal did his harvest in the exact same time span than Federer. If it is considered that Federer's accomplishment can't be taken into account because his opposition was weak, then it has to be the same for Nadal's accomplishment, for the sake of coherence! In that case, despite the fact that Nadal has won many more majors than Lendl or Wilander, many more master 1000, and has a higher winning percentage than them, why not rank him below them? Or below anyone else?

Can someone explain me the coherence of ranking these to guys so far from each others, when one win everything and the other was runner-up of everything?

I can't really judge the pre open era players. But judging by Federer's position in the list among open era players, his position does not seem unreasonable. Top 10 and in very good company

Nadal
Borg
Lendl
Wilander
Kuerten
Vilas
Bruguera
Courier
Muster
Federer

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I'm disappointed by your post. Your answers seem rather ignorant. I had thought you are a serious expert as I have written several times in defending you against true ignorants...

You cannot take ONE match as a proof that Santana was that strong. He was great as an amateur but experts knew then that Gimeno was at least as good. They seeded him third at the first open Wimbledon.

Gimeno did beat both Laver and Rosewall twice in the two 1967 big claycourt events. Are you convinced that Santana could have had those four awesome wins against prime Laver and Rosewall?

Gimeno has beaten both Laver and Rosewall at least nine times in the SAME tournaments and one of them (or the other) about 30 times!

Your question regarding Nüsslein is a kind aof demagogy. You do know that Nüsslein was banned from regulary competition at 17 because he got a few D-Marks at 15 when he trained an adult.

You underrate Plaa. This guy was able to beat Tilden in the 1932 World Pro Championships. He won that event.

Nüsslein defeated in clay majors Tilden, Cochet, Vines and indirectly Budge (the latter in 1939).

He was arguably No.1 on clay in 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939!!!

Please have some consideration about my arguments.

I do respect your post but I think Nysslein, like Vines are a bit overhyped, like those big hollywood stars who are not that great actors but somehow are very charismatic (Bogart, Dean,Cooper,Gable)
There was a big big rivalry in the 60 between pro Gimeno journalists and pro Santana ones
The real stuff is Santana played mainly for the glory and Gimeno for the money
As I posted Gimeno had a more all round game while Santana was more inspired and gutsy
In spite of presss pressure they respected each other and had they teamed up in Davis Cup Spain would have been the only real challenge to Aussie total domination in the 60
Along Laver and Newk both had the best FH of the game

[kiki]

Peak Nasty vs Peak Hoad on fast supreme carpet may have provided the purest tennis ever in terms of unreal shotmaking

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Your passion for Gimeno is moving
Did you know he could not beat Kodes?
Kodes destroyed him at his club event the year Andres won the FO and played great tennis

kiki, Gimeno was 35 that year. An old player cannot be a s consistent as a player in his prime is able to. Kodes of course was very tough on clay also.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I do respect your post but I think Nysslein, like Vines are a bit overhyped, like those big hollywood stars who are not that great actors but somehow are very charismatic (Bogart, Dean,Cooper,Gable)
There was a big big rivalry in the 60 between pro Gimeno journalists and pro Santana ones
The real stuff is Santana played mainly for the glory and Gimeno for the money
As I posted Gimeno had a more all round game while Santana was more inspired and gutsy
In spite of presss pressure they respected each other and had they teamed up in Davis Cup Spain would have been the only real challenge to Aussie total domination in the 60
Along Laver and Newk both had the best FH of the game

kiki, I agree partly (Hollywood and so on) but Vines and Nüsslein are still underrated not overhyped. I never saw any Nüsslein hype...

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Hoodjem ranked Federer at #19 all-time, I don't think that's unreasonable. Certainly I don't think he can be in the top ten all-time when you have the likes of, chronologically,

- Wilding
- Cochet
- Rosewall
- Pietrangeli
- Santana
- Gimeno
- Borg
- Vilas
- Lendl
- Wilander
- Muster
- Kuerten

and some others who I've likely forgotten.

Top 20 all-time on clay is about right for Fed. He would have won more were it not for Nadal, but having said that, he wouldn't have run riot - past clay greats like Kuerten (as he showed in the FO 2004), Lendl and Wilander would still probably have beaten him, at least some of the time.

I didn't see him in the list ( ) so I thought he wasn't even top 40! My bad. N°19 is a bit low for me but I'm not shoked. I will have closer look at some name I'm not familiar with though.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by TMF

Of course Fed is ranked extremely low on this forum. If you go by non-biased people the ex-players, they have Roger average around #7.

http://www2.lequipe.fr/redirect-v6/h...ote-nadal.html

That's Open Era only.

[tennisplayer1993]

1. Nadal 2. Borg