Coria could have challenged Nadal on clay
- Thread starter BreakPoint
- Start date
tacou
G.O.A.T.
I think Nadal is the best clay courter of all time, at least on his way to that title, but the clay field IS pretty weak.
Federer in his prime was great on clay and Novak isn't half bad, but that's the same as all year. there are no specialists who emerge and challenge the top guys. Almagro? Monaco? no...
Federer in his prime was great on clay and Novak isn't half bad, but that's the same as all year. there are no specialists who emerge and challenge the top guys. Almagro? Monaco? no...
Darth Nihilus
Rookie
Challenge him? Perhaps, once in a while he could challenge. But beat him? No way. He couldn´t even beat Federer on clay. So if he were around today he would be the third best clay courter. Maybe not even that. He lost to Davydenko in the French Open QF the year after his nervous breakdown. I think he had a small window of opportunity at the FO from 2003 to 2004. The Nadal came around and Fed started to become dominant, even pushing Nadal on his best surface. So no. Coria was a tad overrated. He wasn´t even good enough to beat Fed on clay.
VamosRafa
Hall of Fame
I agree. The players who have the most success on clay tend to also have good results on hardcourts. By way of example, Ferrero reached the US Open final a few years ago, and Moya has had successes on hardcourts as well. It's getting harder and harder to find true claycourt specialists. Rather than facing good claycourt specialists, Rafa is facing good all-around good players, including the guy many think is the best player of all time.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Same place where all the pros have blisters. His foot.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
There are different levels on how bad a blister can be. Nadal got an extremely bad blister and that was Nadal's 3rd straight tournament as he won 2 straight tournaments. He was also thinking about Hamburg he had to play next week. The best solution was go out early so he could beat Djokovic and Fed the next week.
while i agree that blisters can be debilitating if bad enough, i can say for certaint that nadal did not throw that match. he was in it during the first set, but by not winning the first, he ran out of steam. he wasnt moving like rafa, at all.
but that being said, if coria had the confidence of a win at RG, in the match at Rome that was one today, he mightve prevailed. he was up 3-0 in the fifth, before he pulled back *which he did* and basically gave nadal a chance to get back in it. if coria had not been so mentally fragile at the time, he mightve won. and he wouldve been possibly more determined to defend the crown at RG, possibly preventing nadal from winning it.
but the 2006 match wasnt worth mentioning, because by then coria had completely lost it mentally. he was a shadow of his former self.
matchmaker
Hall of Fame
So I guess Ferrero (former RG champion), Ferrer, Andreev and Almagro are not clay specialists....
CyBorg
Legend
After Ferrero succumbed to chickenpox in early 2004 and various other injuries he hasn't won a title. But he was once a great claycourter.
Andreev and Almagro are clay court specialists, sure. Pathetic ones. Almagro is incredibly talented, but mentally weak. Andreev is all forehand.
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
I don't get this "would"/"what of" thread. Coria and Nadal have been contemporary: Nadal dominated and Coria didn't.
Although I believe Coria had one of the biggest games on clay from recent years, really big. But he didn't make it. For a time he was a legitimate King of clay and lost to Gaudio in his great opportunity to win RG, and then Nadal appeared and Coria went down the hill.
The '05 Rome match was between a player who had already played a RG final and was widely recognised as a clay master, and a young player who was about to explode but needed to make a slam quarters and make himself a name yet. The match was close and could have gone either way, but a match doesn't make a career. After that, Coria didn't demonstrate he could be a threat to Nadal any more.
I really like Coria's game (well, his old days game) and respect him as a player, but facts talk for themselves.
No "would" needed here.
Although I believe Coria had one of the biggest games on clay from recent years, really big. But he didn't make it. For a time he was a legitimate King of clay and lost to Gaudio in his great opportunity to win RG, and then Nadal appeared and Coria went down the hill.
The '05 Rome match was between a player who had already played a RG final and was widely recognised as a clay master, and a young player who was about to explode but needed to make a slam quarters and make himself a name yet. The match was close and could have gone either way, but a match doesn't make a career. After that, Coria didn't demonstrate he could be a threat to Nadal any more.
I really like Coria's game (well, his old days game) and respect him as a player, but facts talk for themselves.
No "would" needed here.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Ferrero has made the final of the US Open (a very fast hardcourt) and has done very well on grass at Wimbledon (beating Blake last year), so I don't think you can label him a "clay court specialist". Ferrer can't beat Nadal on clay but routinely beats him on hardcourts, so I don't think you can label him a "clay court specialist", either.
CyBorg
Legend
My definition of this is simple. A clay court specialist is a guy whose best surface is clay. Primarily, first and foremost.
Ferrer I wouldn't put into that category for obvious reasons. Ferrero was at his best on clay.
tacou
G.O.A.T.
well said.
CyBorg
Legend
At his peak Coria was better. Roger has a backhand weakness that gets exploited on clay with high bouncing spinning groundstrokes. When the ball gets up around his ears he gets into trouble. Coria didn't have that problem, but he didn't have Roger's resolve and, of course, the longevity wasn't there.
Last edited:
akv89
Hall of Fame
I don't see myself disagreeing with most of what you say but I don't understand why you are conveying the idea that a player needs to be a clay court specialist to be a great clay courter. After all, Borg cannot be classified as a clay court specialist and he is considered to be the greatest of them all. The case could be made that previous eras had weak clay fields because they were composed of as many serve and volleyers as clay court specialists who stuck to the baseline, making it easier for the clay courters to get deeper into a tournament. You presented a list of clay specialists but it would be just as easy to present you with a list of players who were absolutely horrible on clay due to a more agressive style of play in previous eras.
akv89
Hall of Fame
Coria had problems with his mentality in his peak just as Roger had problems with his backhand. It seems like you are picking and choosing attributes. In addition Coria did not have to deal with Nadal in his prime as much as Federer has.
CyBorg
Legend
Borg is most definitely a clay court specialist. His best surface was clay.
Now, I at no point claimed that a player needs for clay to be his best surface in order to be good on clay. Far from it. Rather I am pointing more to the history of the surface which has always had players who specialized on clay above other surfaces.
The best clay courters weren't always specialists. An excellent example is Rod Laver in the late 60s, who was probably at his finest on grass, but at the time happened to be the best on clay (overcoming Rosewall).
But specialists are the guys who make up the bulk of the competition. They're the ones who know what to do - how to slide, how to strike the ball, how to anticipate, when to stay back and when to come in. They're the ones who were born to play on the surface.
Normally what one sees on clay is a field made up of clay specialists (guys who are at their best on the surface), all-court players and specialists on other surfaces. Today this balance is missing and is hard to miss when watching clay court tennis.
Your point about serving and volleying doesn't make sense to me. Adriano Panatta and Yannick Noah served and volleyed on clay and were clay court specialists.
How many FO finals has Coria been to, how many TMS Clay titles/finals, does Coria have?
I dont remember Coria getting to the finals of Monte Carlo, Italian Open, Hamburg, FO all in one year, if ever, especially not multiple years. Fed has done that.
CyBorg
Legend
I am not picking and choosing anything. It is a fact that technically Coria was more suited to clay that Federer.
anointedone
Banned
I agree with all you said. I would add:
1. Federer is better then prime Coria on clay. 2-0 is their head to head in Federer's favor, and one of those was in 2004 when Federer wasnt even that good on clay yet (2005 is where he really began to find his feet on clay).
2. In addition to losing the 2004 final to Gaudio, Coria also could not beat Martin Verkerk in the French Open semis (2003) and Nikolay Davydenko in the 4th round of the French Open (2005) when he was in his prime.
3. Coria was getting spanked badly by Ferrero on clay in 2003 before Ferrero went down with injuries and illness.
The answer to this threads question is a resounding NO!
CyBorg
Legend
I have already covered this. Being technically adept on clay does not ensure success alone while Coria's peak was also very short, but it was one during which he was better on the surface than Roger - but that's just my opinion.
However it is vital to note that peak performance is not the only requisite facet to consider. Longevity and quality of play from year to year is also crucial, but as you can tell by the post you were replying to I only alluded to peak play.
Tennis is about matchups and consistency. Coria day in, day out wasn't as consistent as others upstairs (mentally), nor was he the same level of fighter as guys like Muster, Alberto Costa, Mantilla, Corretja, Nadal, and other great clay courters were/are on bad days. It could just be that flatter hitters bothered Coria more than topspin players, and so forth.
I'm quite certain that Coria at his absolute best could give Nadal a run for his money on any given day. The real question would be what about all the other days...
No one is unbeatable in tennis. Not too long ago people used to think Federer was virtually unbeatable, before that Sampras, before that Agassi when he was in one of his good spells, before that Courier, before that Bruguera/Muster/Guga/Ferrero on clay, etc.
In tennis, if you lose even just a hair of confidence and others start believing in themselves and seizing their opportunities when presented, suddenly you see what's happened to Federer this year. If you look at so many formerly dominant players demise it almost inevitably coincides with some freak sickness, injury, period of mental burnout/outside extravagance, etc. where after they comeback they comeback just a little tentative, there's some shocking upset or near upset that raises all the other players' eyes, then the next thing you know there's another upset a little later, and now all bets are off, everyone's looking to brazenly behead the king now, the king starts feeling really insecure, starts doubting himself, and taking two steps at critical juncturs of matches when he should be taking one, he no longer walks the straight line to success, suddenly there are complications and all of the complications if you look closely stemmed from/started from READING BETWEEN THE LINES. Meaning, in the intangibles of chicken pox or mono or what have you. In this sport, that's all it takes. As Courier says, when you're on top, the other players fear you and it almost seems as if they GIVE you the important points. Then, the second you stumble, the news spreads through the locker room like wild fire, and suddenly you're a little hesitant in the clutch, and all the other step up to take advantage and before you know it you're ancient history and losing left and right to nobodies love, love, and love with no pride and you've gained fifty pounds like Thomas Muster...(extreme example).
akv89
Hall of Fame
I wouldn't consider a player who won 5 Wimbledons and made the finals of 4 USOs a clay court specialist.
Panatta and Noah have been successful on clay but history has shown that serve and volleyers in general have struggled much more than they have succeded on clay (unless of course most of the players were serve and volleyers to begin with as was the case during Laver's era) just as baseliners have historically struggled on grass.
The reason why there are so many all court players in tennis is not because the players are not capable of playing from the baseline but rather because they now are also capable to hitting approach shots while being able to hit consistent groundstrokes as the clay specialists before them did resulting in a more homogenous play style.
CyBorg
Legend
And Nadal is and has been a horrible matchup for Federer. It seems that unless Nadal is sick, hurt or tired as a dog Roger would need some kind of divine interference to challenge Nadal on clay, because Nadal knew how to exploit Fed's weaknesses. His topspin troubled Roger, who could only adjust for so long before getting exhausted from battling those high bouncing balls.
Coria on his best day could bother Nadal in ways that Federer never could. Very sharp from both sides and not bothered at all by Nadal's topspin. That is, if all the chemicals in the brain were straight.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Federer also has never made it to the finals of MC, Rome, Hamburg, and the French all in the same year, not even once, so obviously not in multiple years.
In 2004, Coria made it to the finals of MC, Hamburg, and the French, winning MC. He skipped Rome to rest.
CyBorg
Legend
I have given you my definition of what a clay court specialist is. It doesn't matter if you have your own definition - what matters is that I am talking about players whose best surface is clearly clay. They specialize on it, meaning that they thrive on it in ways beyond their capabilites on other surfaces. Borg was by far at his most dominant and comfortable on clay and very few people would disagree with this, because his game was engineered for clay.
I don't know what your point is here. Yannick Noah was first and foremost a clay courter and he was a server and volleyer. Panatta was often incompetent everywhere outside of clay. Most guys going back to the pro/amateur divide years served and volleyed more consistently than players today. There were still clay court specialists then. Like Tony Trabert - great clay court player. Pancho Gonzales - not a great clay court player.
I think it has more to do with the fact that South America isn't producing the players that is used to. Whatever the reason is Nadal is dominating these all-courters, because most of them don't know how to play on clay.
akv89
Hall of Fame
I guess you would call Sampras and Federer grass court specialists as well despite the fact that between them they have won 14 hard court majors.
You don't seem to have understood my point regarding Noah and Panatta. I never rejected the fact that they are clay courters. But two players don't define an entire style of play. My point was that serve and volley IN GENERAL is not favored by clay. I don't expect to be argued on that point but feel free if you want to. Because there were a lot more serve and volleyers in previous eras, a case could be made that the clay field has been weaker is previous eras; I am saying this with my tongue in my cheek because I am only using it to counter your claim that the fact that the clay field is weaker today because there are more all courters.
And I also believe it more likely that players have gained the ability to attack on clay than that they "don't know how to play on clay." Would you mind explaining to me what attributes about a player's game make them a great clay courter?
CyBorg
Legend
Federer is not a grass court specialist. One can argue that he's just as comfortable on hard courts as he is on grass. In my opinion he's on his best on hard courts, but it's close so it's best to look at him as an all-courter. Contrast this with Borg and the fact that his game was geared for clay and whenever Wimbledon came around he spent two weeks fine-tuning his game and would wind up 'unnaturally' serving and volleying, against his prime instincts.
A good example of a grass court specialist is Ivanisevic. You could tell by the way he played, by the way he hit the ball. And, of course, his serve - taylor made.
Sampras one could argue to be a grass court specialist. But he definitely did not begin as one. Borg definitely began as a clay court guru and was one in his junior days.
So what if you feel that serve-and-volley doesn't favour clay? It worked for Noah and Panatta. I don't understand what you're getting at - I don't see how this counters my claim.
A great clay courter is any player who dominates on clay - regardless of how.
Now, as far as specialists go - these tend to be players whose game is geared for clay and less so for other surfaces. They tend to be exceptionally fit and used to a more grinding game. They enjoy long rallies and know how to conserve energy. Increasingly over the past number of eras, clay courters began to hit with lots of spin - in the case of Borg this benefited him because it allowed the ball to clear the net very high and always land safely but deep in front of the opponent's baseline. So he almost never missed - this strategy worked to perfection on clay due to his heavy groundies, but wasn't as effective on faster surfaces. So whenever Borg played on fast hardcourts and carpet he tended to hit flatter.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Federer has had his worst results the last 2 years on hardcourts. Grass is definitely his best surface and clay his second as of late.
CyBorg
Legend
Perhaps, but I think most would agree that Roger is an all-court player. I think that he's at his best on fast hardcourts and carpets.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
I remember Fed saying he didn't like Carpet. Something about it hurting his footwork and balance. Fed seemed to like Rebound Ace the most of all hardcourts and that was slow.
CyBorg
Legend
Anything where the ball stays right around his sweet spot. Below shoulder level - preferably around the waist. It's not about fast/slow, but where the ball is.
Right now, Roger is struggling everywhere.
akv89
Hall of Fame
Because serve and volleyers are generally weaker on clay, it would be easier to defeat them than an all courter. And since there had been more serve and volleyers in previous eras than there are now, one could make a case that the clay field was weaker back then. See my point? You are claiming that today's clay field is weak because of the dominance of the all court play. I can just as easily claim that the clay field had been weaker before because although there may have been players who focused their games entirely on clay, there were just as many others, like most serve and volleyers for example, who were no competition on clay.
Coria's results on clay are no more impressive than Federer's. Does that make Federer a great clay courter?
Grinding is no longer necessary in the current sport which is why there aren't as many clay specialists. All players can generate a great deal of top spin with modern strings allowing them to play aggressively without missing as much as before, which would better explain the presence of so many all courters, instead of saying that players no longer know how to play on clay.
CyBorg
Legend
This is a fallacy - false causation. It's not that servers and volleyers are generally weaker on clay - it's that servers and volleyers are for the most part grass court or all-court players. This is also a poor generalization - there is very little in common between a player like Tim Henman and a player like Yannick Noah. Both are servers and volleyers, yet one's game is geared towards clay and another's isn't.
I don't see a point. You're drawing wrong conclusions by generalizing about the serve and volley. If you watch Yannick Noah play on clay you'll see that his serve and volley style on the surface is not at all alike to a grasscourter's serve and volley approach. So this is meaningless as it lacks context.
I never said Coria was a great clay courter. I said that Coria was a clay court specialist. Read my posts carefully.
Nadal is a grinder and a player most comfortable with long rallies on slow surfaces. He is by far the best clay court player.
The irony to your statement is that guys who play an all-court style do miss a lot, because they are forced to 'go for it'. Unable to match Nadal's spin, they aren't able to tolerate long rallies and wind up risking and losing. That was one of Roger's main problems.
Watch the Nadal/Federer matches from this spring and notice how Roger being a lot more aggressive and taking more risks. He's doing this, because he cannot stay with Nadal on the baseline. But by doing this he piles up big errors and the story is similar when it comes to the other all-court opponents of Nadal.
Now watch Robredo play and he's a man of limited talent, but he's all grind-grind-grind. If only he had more elite capabilities...
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
If winning two Grand Slams on hardcourts in each of the past two years ('06 & '07) qualifies as Federer's worst result then I'd hate to imagine what his best result would be.
luckyboy1300
Hall of Fame
well i don't think so too. federer has been beating coria in 2004 i believe
CyBorg
Legend
Read Tym's post.
Yeah, serious brain cramps.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
you can. but you can also be outplayed and that is what really happened! but you can fool yourself and believe in those lame excuses
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
you embarace yourself in so many ways i can even imagine.
Wasn't you that a few days ago was having a debate with Breakpoint where you claimed all courst are being slowed down?
i could go get the posts but i dont see it necessary...and im too tired for research!
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
There are different levels on how bad a blister can be. Nadal got an extremely bad blister and that was Nadal's 3rd straight tournament as he won 2 straight tournaments. He was also thinking about Hamburg he had to play next week. The best solution was go out early so he could beat Djokovic and Fed the next week.
lets just take a look at your medical skills.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
No I didn't say that. Sounds like something BP would say to belittle Nadal's achievements. RG is faster, AO is faster, Wimbledon is about the same, US Open has been slower as of late but I wouldn't be surprised if they changed the speed again.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
man. you really need to get a grip on yourself. by my non-acurate calculations your are now relentelss posting and defending The almighity nadal at somewhere around 4 am. OMFG...
it is nice to have a favourite player but you starting to sound like mark david chapman. i fear for nadals safety!
CAM178
Hall of Fame
Yes, Nadal was injured. Look at his feet when the trainer came out.
Blisters are not an injury? Ummm. . . .what?! Anything that causes your body pain and makes it difficult to impossible to continue to play is considered an injury. Blisters are essentially like playing on raw skin. Can you imagine trying to play tennis with a few layers of skin missing? Not an appealing notion. With certain blister locations, I can play through. But if they are in key locations on my feet and/or hands, then I can not play.
I will, however, give you that Ferrero played lights-out tennis that day. But against a healthy Rafa, Ferrero is no match. Just look at their head-to-head record: Rafa's up 6-2. And I guaran-damn-tee you that when Rafa faces Ferrero on clay again, Rafa makes JC pay.
M
Morrissey
Guest
I guess this is another sad attempt by the old OP to undermine Nadal´s achievements by talking about Coria of all people? I checked the calendar and I saw 2008, not 2004. So who is this Coria fella? Was he any good? Did he ever beat Nadal or Federer?
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
if he wasnt a little girl in his own mind he would have..
nadal_freak, i'm surprised that you say the AO courts are faster, when most players that played there this year claimed it was actually slower than with rebound ace..
have you been so graced as to play on those courts? i think not.
where is your claim that RG is speeding up? what evidence is there? Grass, i would say hasn't changed for several years, neither has Flushing Meadows, but AO is definitely slowing down..
this is a hypothetical topic, not meant to belittle nadal's achievements. just a consideration of what mightve happened. has everyone here actually seen the match?
because while it can be said nadal was tired, he seemed to have no problem whatsoever with his movement and his hitting. at least not until the fifth set.
i consider that anyone who hasnt actually watched the match in question (Rome 2005 Finals) has a biased point of view, because it's the best example of how the two play against each other. Any example after that is not as accurate, as coria had a massive falling-off after this tournament, never living up to his potential again.
but had coria, for example, won the french in '04, he would have the experience of that win, and be less likely (won't say unlikely, because i dont know) to choke in future events, such as the Rome final, where he was up 3-0 and had a brain fart. he stuck with it and brought it to a tiebreak, but the loss of focus serving at 3-0 cost him, literally, the match.
had he the experience of the RG win, he likely would have beaten nadal at both MC and Rome that year, and may have been a top contender for the French for the second year in a row. I admit that nadal in the last two years, and especially this year, has improved to the point that even a Prime Coria would probably be straight setted, i think that in 05 and 06 Coria mightve been the deciding factor between nadal winning or losing RG
Coria had a big game, but lacked the mental aspect, which caused him to falter on key points. Had he the mentality of a champion (wouldve recieved it from the 04 RG win) he would fight through tough sticky situations, and wouldve beaten nadal in the Rome final. So yes, this is all banking on his mental collapse in Roland Garros 2004. That is the shatterpoint of coria's career. it mightve been spectacular. but it was not to be.
Last edited:
M
Morrissey
Guest
What are you talking about? I never said anything about RG courts speeding up. Are you ok? You quoted me but your whole post is a response to someone else completely. In my opinion, I haven´t noticed any change at the French Open over the years. Its still clay, therefore its slow.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
hmm, yeah, i just noticed that. mustve been my internet lag.
sorry, i was addressing another post by nadal_freak.
edit: fixed.
Similar threads
- Poll
