Clay Court GOAT

kiki · Oct 29, 2012

Dan Lobb said:
In Australia, the dark shale clay, referred to in Australia as "hardcourt", was traditionally the most common surface, cheaper to build and maintain than grass, so the great generation of Aussie players, Sedgman, Hoad, Rosewall, Emerson, Cooper, Anderson, Laver, Newcombe, Roche, grew up playing on "hardcourt" clay.
This explains why the Australian players did so well on the European clay court circuit, and won so many French and Italian titles.
The Americans, especially the Californians, grew up playing on fast cement, and were at a disadvantage on the European clay.
The Australian Hardcourt Championship was a major national title in Australia.

I didn´t really know it although now that youm mention it, Laver in his book also mentioned some bricky courts aroun Rockhampton and the Queensland, where he grew up, and so did Emerson.You might be right but, then again, why there´s never been a great cc event there? why did Australians chose the Sidney Indoors on carpet to be the second biggest tournament?

Dan Lobb · Oct 30, 2012

kiki said:
I didn´t really know it although now that youm mention it, Laver in his book also mentioned some bricky courts aroun Rockhampton and the Queensland, where he grew up, and so did Emerson.You might be right but, then again, why there´s never been a great cc event there? why did Australians chose the Sidney Indoors on carpet to be the second biggest tournament?

The Australian Hardcourt WAS a major clay court event, a true national title.

BobbyOne · Oct 30, 2012

Dan Lobb said:
The Australian Hardcourt WAS a major clay court event, a true national title.

But mostly only Aussies participated.

Dan Lobb · Oct 30, 2012

BobbyOne said:
But mostly only Aussies participated.

Including Hoad, Rosewall, Bromwich, Rose, etc. The toughest national lineup on clay on the planet.

hoodjem · Mar 15, 2013

Here we go--

hoodjem said:
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. Santana
15. Bruguera
16. Pietrangeli
17. Courier
18. Muster
19. Federer
20. Kodes
21. von Cramm
22. Emerson
23. Nastase
25. Trabert
26. Orantes
27. Panatta
28. Agassi
29. Connors
30. Nusslein
31. Tilden
32. Gimeno
33. Frank Parker
34. Roche
35. Sven Davidson
36. Jack Crawford
37. Fred Perry
38. J.E. Patty
39. Decugis
40. Segura

(Latest version, as of 10-23-12.)

As of 3-15-2013, I believe Djokovic should find a place on here now.

BobbyOne · Mar 15, 2013

hoodjem said:
Here we go--
As of 3-15-2013, I believe Djokovic should find a place on here now.

hoodjem, I would omit Emerson. I also would rank higher Nüsslein, Gimeno and Segura.

forzamilan90 · Mar 15, 2013

hoodjem said:
Here we go--
As of 3-15-2013, I believe Djokovic should find a place on here now.

Based on what? I love the man, but at the current stage in his career it'd be premature putting him in such a list.

kiki · Mar 18, 2013

hoodjem said:
Here we go--
As of 3-15-2013, I believe Djokovic should find a place on here now.

Santana,Bruguera and Kodes should AT LEAST be at Vilas level
Wilding, as great as he was, did not get too tough opposition...

hoodjem · Mar 18, 2013

kiki said:
Wilding, as great as he was, did not get too tough opposition. . .

Oh yea! Where's the video?

hoodjem · Mar 18, 2013

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. Santana
15. Bruguera
16. Pietrangeli
17. Courier
18. Muster
19. Federer
20. Kodes
21. von Cramm
22. Nusslein
23. Nastase
25. Trabert
26. Orantes
27. Panatta
28. Gimeno
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 · Mar 18, 2013

So, no Djokovic . . . yet.

BobbyOne · Mar 18, 2013

kiki said:
Santana,Bruguera and Kodes should AT LEAST be at Vilas level
Wilding, as great as he was, did not get too tough opposition...

kiki, I believe that these three were not as strong as world No.1 player Vilas (1977). I agree regarding Wilding.

BobbyOne · Mar 18, 2013

hoodjem said:
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. Santana
15. Bruguera
16. Pietrangeli
17. Courier
18. Muster
19. Federer
20. Kodes
21. von Cramm
22. Emerson
23. Nastase
25. Trabert
26. Orantes
27. Panatta
28. Agassi
29. Connors
30. Nusslein
31. Tilden
32. Gimeno
33. Frank Parker
34. Segura
35. Roche
36. Sven Davidson
37. Jack Crawford
38. Fred Perry
39. J.E. Patty
40. Decugis

hoodjem, I cannot agree that Nüsslein is much lower ranked than von Cramm (or even at all).

kiki · Mar 18, 2013

BobbyOne said:
kiki, I believe that these three were not as strong as world No.1 player Vilas (1977). I agree regarding Wilding.

They all won twice at Paris
I Agree Vilas 77 run at RG & FH is a great achievement
Maybe Vilas and Santana are a bit ahead Bruguera@Kodes on clay

robow7 · Mar 18, 2013

Nice list, though many are unknown to me (admittingly not a student of tennis pre 50's) but .......Vilas was awfully good to be listed at 13 considering the clay court streak he ran up. 2nd only to Borg during a Golden Age of great clay courters. Just my opinion of course.

forzamilan90 · Mar 18, 2013

How does one rank Decugis?

BobbyOne · Mar 18, 2013

kiki said:
They all won twice at Paris
I Agree Vilas 77 run at RG & FH is a great achievement
Maybe Vilas and Santana are a bit ahead Bruguera@Kodes on clay

kiki, Santana was claycourt No.1 in amateur times only, Vilas was No.1 in open era...

kiki · Mar 18, 2013

forzamilan90 said:
How does one rank Decugis?

Good remark, he seems to be the most unknown of past champions

kiki · Mar 18, 2013

BobbyOne said:
kiki, Santana was claycourt No.1 in amateur times only, Vilas was No.1 in open era...

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

BobbyOne · Mar 18, 2013

kiki said:
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 · Mar 19, 2013

BobbyOne said:
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 · Mar 19, 2013

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

hoodjem · Mar 19, 2013

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 · Mar 19, 2013

hoodjem said:
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 · Mar 19, 2013

Flash O'Groove said:
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 · Mar 19, 2013

kiki said:
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 · Mar 19, 2013

kiki said:
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 · Mar 19, 2013

hoodjem said:
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 · Mar 19, 2013

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/...23_205342_le-jury-de-l-equipe-vote-nadal.html

Fintft · Mar 19, 2013

pc1 said:
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 · Mar 19, 2013

BobbyOne said:
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 · Mar 19, 2013

Flash O'Groove said:
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 · Mar 19, 2013

BobbyOne said:
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 · Mar 19, 2013

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

BobbyOne · Mar 19, 2013

kiki said:
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 · Mar 19, 2013

kiki said:
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 · Mar 19, 2013

Phoenix1983 said:
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 · Mar 19, 2013

TMF said:
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/...23_205342_le-jury-de-l-equipe-vote-nadal.html

That's Open Era only.

tennisplayer1993 · Mar 19, 2013

1. Nadal 2. Borg

TMF · Mar 19, 2013

Phoenix1983 said:
That's Open Era only.

Most of the greatest players are coming from the open era. Take top 50 players in the open-era and compare to the top 50 in the pre-open, experts picked most from the open-era. I don't care if the list is about the greatest clay courters, greatest grass players or greatest hard court players, the vast majority of the open-era players are at the top.

BobbyOne · Mar 19, 2013

TMF said:
Most of the greatest players are coming from the open era. Take top 50 players in the open-era and compare to the top 50 in the pre-open, experts picked most from the open-era. I don't care if the list is about the greatest clay courters, greatest grass players or greatest hard court players, the vast majority of the open-era players are at the top.

MIGHTY FEDERER, are you dreaming? Your dreams are nightmares for true experts...

forzamilan90 · Mar 19, 2013

BobbyOne said:
MIGHTY FEDERER, are you dreaming? Your dreams are nightmares for true experts...

He does have a point to an extent though. Modernized tennis is thought upon to be superior...to an extent

NatF · Mar 19, 2013

forzamilan90 said:
He does have a point to an extent though. Modernized tennis is thought upon to be superior...to an extent

No no no, the tennis talent pool peaked in the 1930's, the greatest of the modern era is substantially bellow them //sarcasm.

Dan Lobb · Mar 19, 2013

NatF said:
No no no, the tennis talent pool peaked in the 1930's, the greatest of the modern era is substantially bellow them //sarcasm.

I think that you mean the 1950's, when the clay field was the toughest ever, much tougher than today.
Just think:
Segura, Patty, Drobny, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Davidson, Pietrangeli to name only the greatest.
Nadal would have won only one French title at most in the 1950's. If VERY lucky, two.
No sarcasm.

NatF · Mar 19, 2013

Dan Lobb said:
I think that you mean the 1950's, when the clay field was the toughest ever, much tougher than today.
Just think:
Segura, Patty, Drobny, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Davidson, Pietrangeli to name only the greatest.
Nadal would have won only one French title at most in the 1950's. If VERY lucky, two.
No sarcasm.

By 30's I meant players born in the 30's...Maybe if Nadal was playing in the 50's he would have only one, I doubt it. However likewise if those players were playing in the 00's Nadal would be unlikely to lose more than tiebreak set.

Nadal is one of the greatest movers the game has ever seen. He has surprisingly good touch when he wants to and alot of power. Not to mention his stamina and mental game. He could be champion in any time period.

BobbyOne · Mar 19, 2013

Dan Lobb said:
I think that you mean the 1950's, when the clay field was the toughest ever, much tougher than today.
Just think:
Segura, Patty, Drobny, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Davidson, Pietrangeli to name only the greatest.
Nadal would have won only one French title at most in the 1950's. If VERY lucky, two.
No sarcasm.[/QUOTE.

Dan, You forgot Gonzalez and Sedgman.

Dan Lobb · Mar 19, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Dan Lobb said:

I think that you mean the 1950's, when the clay field was the toughest ever, much tougher than today.
Just think:
Segura, Patty, Drobny, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Davidson, Pietrangeli to name only the greatest.
Nadal would have won only one French title at most in the 1950's. If VERY lucky, two.
No sarcasm.[/QUOTE.

Dan, You forgot Gonzalez and Sedgman.

Click to expand...

Yes, they both had some good results on clay, but not the French title.

kiki · Mar 20, 2013

TMF said:
Most of the greatest players are coming from the open era. Take top 50 players in the open-era and compare to the top 50 in the pre-open, experts picked most from the open-era. I don't care if the list is about the greatest clay courters, greatest grass players or greatest hard court players, the vast majority of the open-era players are at the top.

I am not so sure, even if you consider Laver and Rosewall open era players still many will consider Wilding,Tilden,Cochet,Lacoste,Budge,Perry,Crawford,Vines,Kramer,Parker,Sedgman,Trabert,Hoad and Gonzales being as good if not better than most of the open players if equal equipment and court conditions are the same
Gonzales,Hoad and Sedgie for instance were much stronger than 90% open era top guys

kiki · Mar 20, 2013

If current players played former speed courts and wood rackets
Gonzo or Hoad would have an orgy of baggels at major finals that may cause their expulsion from the game
ROFLMAO

forzamilan90 · Mar 20, 2013

Dan Lobb said:
I think that you mean the 1950's, when the clay field was the toughest ever, much tougher than today.
Just think:
Segura, Patty, Drobny, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Davidson, Pietrangeli to name only the greatest.
Nadal would have won only one French title at most in the 1950's. If VERY lucky, two.
No sarcasm.

Without a doubt the most disrespectful post to a great player that you can make. Nadal? Have you seen how he moves on that surface? Take away racket technology you still have a relentless gladiator getting every ball back. Not one of them players you mentioned, of those I have seen footage, is anywhere near the athlete Nadal is. You have zero credibility at this point, zero.

Clay Court GOAT

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Professional

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Legend

Similar threads