federer as a clay courter

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by Agassifan

*much* better than Nadal as a hard courter

He has more finals, but Nadal actually beat Fed and Novak in hard court slams.

[Wilander Fan]

I would put him behind 2 time winners but with an asterisk. Given the number of other titles and the number of times he has lost to Nadal in the semis or finals, its not unfair to consider Fed to have been unlucky in playing in the same era as the clay court GOAT. He might have dominated clay in any other era.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by big ted

they do here. i guess a different person wrote the article and ranked them different...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...rs-of-all-time

Yes, you are correct. Very odd that there is not consistency in these lists from the same source. Talk about confusing . . .

(Yes, probably different opinions from different authors.)

[NatF]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

He has more finals, but Nadal actually beat Fed and Novak in hard court slams.

Beat past his prime Federer in hard court slams. How many hardcourt titles has Federer won with Nadal in the draw? If Nadal wasn't even good enough to reach Federer it's a bit unfair to cite the head to head.

[TennisLovaLova]

Originally Posted by NatF

Beat past his prime Federer in hard court slams. How many hardcourt titles has Federer won with Nadal in the draw? If Nadal wasn't even good enough to reach Federer it's a bit unfair to cite the head to head.

AO isnt really a true hard court so to speak
it plays slower than Roland Garros

[corners]

On level of play on clay he's #2 or #3. His level of play on clay is higher than Muster, Bruguera, Lendl, Wilander, and most likely he would have taken out Borg regularly. But level comparisons are complicated by equipment changes. Borg would have been better had he grown up with larger headsizes and used copoly strings, but we'll never know how good. He definitely would not have had the power of Federer or Nadal. He would have been something like a faster, more accurate Ferrer. Would that be good enough to beat Nadal and Fed on clay?

On claycourt record alone Fed is top-10 all-time on clay.

Combining level and record, taking into account that the majority of his claycourt losses have come at the hands of the claycourt GOAT, and he's #3.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by NatF

Beat past his prime Federer in hard court slams. How many hardcourt titles has Federer won with Nadal in the draw? If Nadal wasn't even good enough to reach Federer it's a bit unfair to cite the head to head.

Probably as much past his prime as Nadal was in last year's RG.

Nadal wasn't at his prime yet on hard courts.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

Probably as much past his prime as Nadal was in last year's RG.

Nadal wasn't at his prime yet on hard courts.

Last years RG is irrelevent to how Nadal and Federer have done in hard court slams...

Well then I guess all we have to go on is how they did when did enter their primes on hard courts and currently Fed has 9 slams to Nadals 2.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Somewhere from 8-15 all time. Most likely just outside the top 10 all time at 11th or 12th. Open Era alone I would rank him 6th behind Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander in that order. There is no argument whatsoever for him being higher than 6th in the Open Era, but one could argue him being lower than Muster or Courier, and thus arguably lower than 6th.

While I agree with this overall, no way would I rank Muster ahead of Fed at this point, 5 FO finals compared to getting past QF twice and one final is just too much of a gap IMO even if we presume Muster's peak level on clay was better than Fed's (which is something I personally think).

Courier is a different matter, I think he's underrated as a claycourter, one could certainly argue he should be ranked higher than Fed on clay.

[Gizo]

I agree that Federer is ahead of Muster in the clay court pecking order. I also agree that Muster's peak level on clay from 1995-1996 when he won had a spell of 99 wins out of 102 on the surface was better than Federer's.

However I think that even a peak level Muster would find Federer to be a pretty horrible match-up on clay. I think that Muster would have far more problems facing Federer on clay, but would get the better of Djokovic more often than not.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Gizo

I agree that Federer is ahead of Muster in the clay court pecking order. I also agree that Muster's peak level on clay from 1995-1996 when he won had a spell of 99 wins out of 102 on the surface was better than Federer's.

However I think that even a peak level Muster would find Federer to be a pretty horrible match-up on clay. I think that Muster would have far more problems facing Federer on clay, but would get the better of Djokovic more often than not.

So would Federer.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by zagor

While I agree with this overall, no way would I rank Muster ahead of Fed at this point, 5 FO finals compared to getting past QF twice and one final is just too much of a gap IMO even if we presume Muster's peak level on clay was better than Fed's (which is something I personally think).

Courier is a different matter, I think he's underrated as a claycourter, one could certainly argue he should be ranked higher than Fed on clay.

I didnt say I would rank Muster above Federer on clay. I only said one could definitely make an argument to rank Muster above Federer on clay and it wouldnt be at all unreasonable. Muster had 2 years he was far and away the Worlds best clay courter. Federer never was this. Muster also has won Rome and Monte Carlo, the 2nd and 3rd most prestigious clay court events, twice each. Federer has never won Rome or Monte Carlo. Lastly while I dont think the numerous tiny clay titles should be overemphasized it is still worth noting he has 40 clay titles.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by NatF

Last years RG is irrelevent to how Nadal and Federer have done in hard court slams...

Well then I guess all we have to go on is how they did when did enter their primes on hard courts and currently Fed has 9 slams to Nadals 2.

It's not really all we have to go by. But we'd probably just go around in circles with this.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I didnt say I would rank Muster above Federer on clay. I only said one could definitely make an argument to rank Muster above Federer on clay and it wouldnt be at all unreasonable. Muster had 2 years he was far and away the Worlds best clay courter. Federer never was this. Muster also has won Rome and Monte Carlo, the 2nd and 3rd most prestigious clay court events, twice each. Federer has never won Rome or Monte Carlo. Lastly while I dont think the numerous tiny clay titles should be overemphasized it is still worth noting he has 40 clay titles.

Just so we know, which of the *three* titles (each) Muster won at MC and Rome are you asterisking? The '92 demolition of Krickstein in MC and the '90 execution of Chesnokov in Rome, I imagine?