Are the following players “clay court specialists”?

Fabresque

Fabresque

Legend
Novak Djokovic
Roger Federer
Stan Wawrinka

They all have won 1 or more French Open titles, does this not make them clay court specialists?

Aren’t they all better clay court players than Dominic Thiem, who is considered one of the most well known clay court specialists in the last 10 years?

I would consider them all clay court specialists. In the case of Djokovic/Federer, I’d consider them “all-court specialists”.
 
Another interesting point: Is Nadal a grass court specialist? He’s won Wimbledon twice.

Isn’t he better than Andy Roddick on grass?
 
Federer and Djokovic are GOAT tier players so the criteria and expectation is a bit different for them. Wawrinka says his favorite surface is clay.

I think it’s about relative to the player. Muster was called the “king of clay” but he only won RG once.
 
For me a specialist has to be clearly excelling on this specific condition and not as good in other conditions to really be a specialist. While Djokovic is best at the AO or on medium/slow HC and Federer best on low bouncing quick surfaces like grass, both are excellent everywhere they play.

Medvedev is a hard court specialist because (despite his Rome win and Wimby SF) he is clearly far better on concrete than on anything natural. Thomas Muster is a textbook definition clay specialist. Didier Drogba is a big match specialist. Harry Kane is a meaningless match specialist. You get the picture.

Thiem really could have qualified a clay court specialist though aside from his time under Massu. Before IW 19 the vast majority of his success was on clay, reaching only one slam QF off clay and winning I believe 80% of his titles on clay. Massu shortened his swings and helped Thiem adjust and he paid it off with the IW win and YEC, AO 20, USO 20 runs.

Ultimately though the Prince of Clay never got his crown. I’m not sure what he is really.
 
Kralingen said:
For me a specialist has to be clearly excelling on this specific condition and not as good in other conditions to really be a specialist. While Djokovic is best at the AO or on medium/slow HC and Federer best on low bouncing quick surfaces like grass, both are excellent everywhere they play.

Medvedev is a hard court specialist because (despite his Rome win and Wimby SF) he is clearly far better on concrete than on anything natural. Thomas Muster is a textbook definition clay specialist. Didier Drogba is a big match specialist. Harry Kane is a meaningless match specialist. You get the picture.

Thiem really could have qualified a clay court specialist though aside from his time under Massu. Before IW 19 the vast majority of his success was on clay, reaching only one slam QF off clay and winning I believe 80% of his titles on clay. Massu shortened his swings and helped Thiem adjust and he paid it off with the IW win and YEC, AO 20, USO 20 runs.

Ultimately though the Prince of Clay never got his crown. I’m not sure what he is really.
Click to expand...
Thiem was a hope 4-the-best specialist.

Not much different from rublev
 
Thiem is a clay court specialist as his game used to peak in clay. However low the peak is.

Fed / Djo game peaked in grass / hard respectively. Though their clay game would still be superior to Thiem - hence they are the all court players who have near high peaks in all surfaces.

Nadal had a super high peak on clay, but his peak hard and grass tennis was also quite good - we can call him all court clay specialist. Lol
 
TheNachoMan said:
I just clocked that Med has more big titles on clay than Thiem…oh dear.
Click to expand...
idris-elba.gif
 
Wawrinka, Federer, Djokovic are all European players who grew up on clay courts. They have always been great on this surface and (apart from Wawrinka) would have 5-10 RG titles and would be a clay GOAT contenders if not for Nadal. Yes they are outstanding clay players however talking about "specialists" in this day and age is counter productive. Nadal would be having at least 6 Wimbledon titles if not for Fed/Djoko and he isn't grass court specialist.
 
DogInSpace said:
Wawrinka, Federer, Djokovic are all European players who grew up on clay courts. They have always been great on this surface and (apart from Wawrinka) would have 5-10 RG titles and would be a clay GOAT contenders if not for Nadal. Yes they are outstanding clay players however talking about "specialists" in this day and age is counter productive. Nadal would be having at least 6 Wimbledon titles if not for Fed/Djoko and he isn't grass court specialist.
Click to expand...
Bravo!
 
Depends how you define the term. For someone to be a specialist I'd say their results on a single surface would have to significantly outpace their results on other surfaces. It's pretty tough to even be one in this day and age given how relatively similarly the surfaces all play. I wouldn't class any of those guys as one, though Stan wouldn't be far off. Nor would I Lendl, or Wilander, or Borg.
 
there are no specialists in this era......there are only two types of players today regardless of the surface......baseliners who can volley and baseliners who cannot volley......
 
Fabresque said:
Novak Djokovic
Roger Federer
Stan Wawrinka

They all have won 1 or more French Open titles, does this not make them clay court specialists?

Aren’t they all better clay court players than Dominic Thiem, who is considered one of the most well known clay court specialists in the last 10 years?

I would consider them all clay court specialists. In the case of Djokovic/Federer, I’d consider them “all-court specialists”.
Click to expand...

They are not clay specialists, and neither is Thiem.
 
It used to refer to people who ONLY won on clay and avoided other surfaces especially like grass like the plague. Back then when Nadal emerged it has since become a kind of backhanded compliment to refer to his unbalanced resume.

But I agree nowadays there are rarely clay specialists in the true sense of the word. Everyone kinda plays the same on all surfaces and it's easier to translate success on one surface to another.
 
Clay lover said:
It used to refer to people who ONLY won on clay and avoided other surfaces especially like grass like the plague. Back then when Nadal emerged it has since become a kind of backhanded compliment to refer to his unbalanced resume.

But I agree nowadays there are rarely clay specialists in the true sense of the word. Everyone kinda plays the same on all surfaces and it's easier to translate success on one surface to another.
Click to expand...

Yeah, surface specialists went the way of the specialist surfaces. As players were able somewhat very similar games on all three surfaces, the specialist player died out.

IMO, the last player who can possibly be seen as clay specialist was Coria.

Yes, players still have their preferred surfaces, Clay for Nadal, Hard for Djokovic, Grass for Federer, they still can play somewhat the same game with a few changes on the other surfaces.
 
Clay specialist wins the majority of his slams on RF. Ditto for grass specialist.

Borg, Kuerten & Nadal were clay specialists. Borg, Sampras & Federer weren't grass specialists.

Thiem had the misfortune of getting Nadal in all of his final appearances. He might be better than all three on clay.
 
Kralingen said:
For me a specialist has to be clearly excelling on this specific condition and not as good in other conditions to really be a specialist. While Djokovic is best at the AO or on medium/slow HC and Federer best on low bouncing quick surfaces like grass, both are excellent everywhere they play.

Medvedev is a hard court specialist because (despite his Rome win and Wimby SF) he is clearly far better on concrete than on anything natural. Thomas Muster is a textbook definition clay specialist. Didier Drogba is a big match specialist. Harry Kane is a meaningless match specialist. You get the picture.

Thiem really could have qualified a clay court specialist though aside from his time under Massu. Before IW 19 the vast majority of his success was on clay, reaching only one slam QF off clay and winning I believe 80% of his titles on clay. Massu shortened his swings and helped Thiem adjust and he paid it off with the IW win and YEC, AO 20, USO 20 runs.

Ultimately though the Prince of Clay never got his crown. I’m not sure what he is really.
Click to expand...
Why did you have to kill this thread with your common sense?
 
The main point of this thread was to address nonsensicle (in my opinion) claims like “Thiem is better than Wawrinka on clay” or “Roddick is better than Nadal on grass”.

Yeah I mean they were good but the reality is that Thiem/Roddick never won at those slams, Wawrinka and Nadal did. Therefore they’re better.
 
Sudacafan said:
Why did you have to kill this thread with your common sense?
Click to expand...
Yeah see this is common sense but when I say Graham Potter is a wet cereal coach I get told to “trust the process” and “back the gaffah”.

Common sense always prevails in the end
 
Fedfan claim RF, an ATG would win 5/6without Nadal,2 best clay courter for years they say.2 wins in 14 years of rivalry, proven on fastest conditions on clay (Madrid/Hamburg) , not proven on most traditional clay Masters , 1 RG, hats off , seized one in lifetime opportunity,

Thiem former Prince of clay ,not good enough to win clay Masters. Wawrinka imo has the game, could be closest , but he wasted most part of his career on being head case, except for that one time, destroying everyone (except Nadal)
That leaves us to Djokovic holding clay court competition against best clay court player on his shoulders alone. And it took him time
.Excellent , bordeline ATG on clay , but not a specialist
Strong clay court field , almost like that on HC, right?:notworthy:
 
Hitman said:
Yeah, surface specialists went the way of the specialist surfaces. As players were able somewhat very similar games on all three surfaces, the specialist player died out.

IMO, the last player who can possibly be seen as clay specialist was Coria.

Yes, players still have their preferred surfaces, Clay for Nadal, Hard for Djokovic, Grass for Federer, they still can play somewhat the same game with a few changes on the other surfaces.
Click to expand...
I think people exaggerate how much the surfaces are the same. For example, Nadal only won 77.6% of his games on hard courts. But he won 92.3% of his games on clay. He won 25 titles on hard but 63 on clay. Vilas only won 79.9% of his matches on clay. So I would simply say Nadal is a modern day clay specialist who has been so damned good that he has been able to do well on other surfaces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fabresque
Are clay court specialists better on grass than grass court specialists on clay?
Replies
23
Views
2K
tonylg
T
C
Female clay court specialists?
Replies
30
Views
3K
bluetrain4
B
Hood_Man
Rafael Nadal and David Ferrer are both well known clay court specialists
Replies
5
Views
550
Rorano_Fedalovic
Rorano_Fedalovic
T
If the one-handed backhand is so bad at high balls, why have...
2
Replies
91
Views
12K
Meles
Meles
G
Clay-court specialists: 'One-Trick-Ponies'?
Replies
29
Views
3K
andfor
A
Back
Top