Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by illusions30, Oct 19, 2013.
Try making a coherent argument instead of LOLling like a clown.
No one can argue with trolling clowns like yourself! You're saying that ONE point, where Schmokovic broke the rule shouldn't be counted. And because of that Rafa won even the Montreal, Cincy, and USO.
Biggest joke ever! I can only lol :lol: :lol:
Anaconda, You can't rate Kuerten's injuries as a favour. If yet, I would answer that Rosewall did not play a clay major in 1955, 1956, 1957, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1970, 1971 and 1972. In all those years Muscles would have been the favourite or co-favourite.
Have you ever seen Rosewall's backhand?
Dont think you are serious. I cant take this serious.
Tennis isnt magic. It is a sport.
As far as the open era goes, none of the one time RG winners like Vilas, Federer or Muster belong in this conversation.
It's really between Lendl, Wilander and Kuerten. Kuerten may have had the highest peak level of play on clay out of the 3. But then Lendl was of a similar standard on carpet, hard courts and clay, while Kuerten was clearly far better on clay than any other surface, so Guga's clay court level stood out more.
Lendl was more dominant at RG than any other player bar Nadal or Borg in the open era. He won 3 titles and reached another final in 4 years from 1984-1987. Wilander won his 3 titles in 7 years and never successfully defended his RG title, and Kuerten won with his 3 titles in 5 years with 2nd round and quarter-final exits sandwiched in-between in 1998 and 1999.
Lendl had the 3rd best win-loss % on clay in the open era (no prizes for guessing who the top 2 players were there). He played quite a lot more matches on clay than Wilander and Kuerten, but still suffered fewer defeats than both of them, which shows how much more reliable he was day to day.
He won 28 clay court titles (8 more than Wilander and 14 more than Kuerten) with 2 each at Monte-Carlo, Rome, Hamburg and Barcelona, so he was a multiple champion at the 5 most prestigious European red clay events.
He also has winning clay court h2hs against Wilander (6-4) and Vilas (7-5), and straight setted both Bruguera and Muster on the surface in 1992.
Obviously expanding into the pre-open era period, players like Wilding and Cochet could easily be ranked ahead of him.
I see what you did there: stipulate that highly disputable things ate undisputed
Kuerten played very well on clay, and his backhand was awesome. I think that he deserves this fourth place.
1. Nadal (way ahead of the others)
2. Borg or Rosewall
Is probably the best all time top 5. So I would say Lendl is the right choice here.
Pretty impressive to be the 4th best player ever on your 3rd favorite surface. Lendl was almost certainly better on both hard courts and carpet than he was on clay. Too bad that his weakest surface was so much weaker than the others.
Lendl became more and more adept to hard courts and basically indoor surfaces by 1982, when he dominated both, the Dallas finals and the Masters and reached his first US Open final.
In 1980-1981 he was mainly a clay courter who could do big dammage on hard courts and indoor courts but not as strong as Borg,Connors and Mc Enroe there.
By 1985 or so he was already very tough on grass.But Becker,Edberg and on the ocassion Cash and Wilander were a bit better than him, which cost him a Wimbledon title.
Vilas is one time RG winner, but two times clay Grand Slam winner. So, he can't be compared to Federer or Muster.
Lendl is really underrated on clay even though the guy has 3 RGs. I'd love to see Lendl going against Nadal on clay (or any surface, for that matter).
Separate names with a comma.