Clay Court Competition Today

[noeledmonds]

What do you think of the depth and strength of the clay court competition in the men’s game at the moment? I have come to the conclusion that the competition (in terms of strength anyway) is at it weakest for some time. Nadal is undoubtedly a great clay courter who will probably go down as one of the all-time open-era clay court greats. However what competition is there to challenge him?

I believe that the three previous winner of the FO before Nadal (Gaudio, Ferrero, Costa) are the weakest set of champions in three adjacent years at the FO since before the open-era. There are other weaker FO champions dotted throughout the open-era (Gomez and Noah for example) however these champions were not preceded or followed by equally weak champions. These 3 champions (Gaudio, Ferrero, Costa) have never even met Nadal at the FO. Nadal has yet to play a FO champion at the FO, surely a reflection of the weaker preceeding champions.

Consider that great clay courters such as Vilas and Nastalse only managed one FO each back in the 1970s. These players did not choke away their opotunities (like Coria for example) they were simply undone by other great clay courters. Vilas won just one of four FO finals, but his losses came to Borg (twice) and Willander. These are two of the greatest clay court opponents. It is easier to blame Nastalse’s temperament, but consider that his only other final was a loss to Kodes and you see that he was also undone by another great clay courter. If we look later in history we encounter Chang, the youngest ever winner of the FO, yet still unable to convert a second title. The closest Chang came to winning again was a crushing defeat to Muster in the 1995 final. Muster also only had one FO title and despite the horrendous accident he was unfortunate enough to suffer a player of his calibre was still unlucky to win just one FO. I can’t imagine Muster struggling to chew up the likes of Gaudio, even well outside his prime year of 1995.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Yeah, I agree. But Nadal can still have an argument for being the 2nd best claycourter of the open era, its not his fault that not too long ago Coria & Gaudio were the best claycourters, despite being so mentally fragile. I think they would have wet themselves if they saw a rabid Muster across the net.
Ferrero was really great though, his injuries broke up his confidence.

Was just watching highlights of the FO in the 90s, there were so many legit contenders playing at the same time-Medvedev, Costa, Rios, Corretja, Moya, Kuerten, Berasategui, Mantilla, Muster, Bruguera etc. In 1998 Rios won Rome, Costa won Hamburg & they played each other in the 4th Round of the French! That shows the depth. And Rios lost to the Monte Carlo champion Moya in the next round. Medvedev won 4 masters series on clay, more than any other player that didn't win the French, & he had to run into guys like Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten at the French.

Even before Nadal started dominating, it seemed kinda weak in '04, Gaudio, Coria, Federer, Robredo were probably the best claycourters that year.

check out this thread, sort of along those lines:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=129750

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Federer>Chang on clay. I think you are overrating some of these players in the past. I'll take what Nadal did over Muster anytime. Stich getting to the finals doesn't support your argument either. Also all these clay courters came at different times. They all had a short span of being great. Hopefully Nadal defies that.

 

[z-money]

nadal is going for his third straight. gaudio was a fluke coria should have straight setted him. he was great on clay before his injuries which was unfortunate. and i can say the same for Guga. he won 3 and before nadal he is the last guy to beat fed at RG. I dont think its week i think that coria guga roger and rafa. would make the french season insane but there are inguries.

 

[urban]

Its seems a kind of strange and a sign for a weak clay era, that a "top" clay courter like Ferrer wins 0 and 0 today, and a few days ago, loses to a apparently sub par playing Federer 4 and 0. Gaudio wasn't a really good clay courter, i think he would lose to all RG champions of the 90s. Ferrero was good, for a time, technically he was on par with Guga, even when Guga won RG. Coria was talented and physically fragil, but when you compare him to Rios, i think, Rios was even more talented. Nadal is a great clay courter, no doubt, but there is not much competition.

 

[aramis]

I don't think you can include Ferrero and even Coria with a guy like Gaudio. Gaudio just has talent, nothing else. While Gaudio was always mentally weak, Coria only became so after his two crushing losses at RG 04 and Rome 05. Prior to that he barely dropped sets on clay. I wouldn't say he was mentally weak. And Ferrero belongs with the likes of Kuerten. One of the best clay court players I have ever seen and definitely the best mover on the surface. When Kuerten was on, it was impossible to beat him from the baseline, but Ferrero was able to outgun him in Rome 01 in tough 5-setter, the year Guga won the French.

And to answer the original question, yes I don't think there is a doubt that the clay court field is quite weak now. But even if the better players in recent years were playing (Costa, Rios, Brugera,...), Nadal would still crush them IMO. The only question is how a prime Guga Kuerten would handle Nadal, and maybe 02/03 Ferrero. I definitely don't think Roger would be the number 2 clay player if the field had the above mentioned players. His game on clay has way too many holes in it and is far too inconsistent.

 

[Jonas]

I tend to agree with the sentiments of the original poster 100%.
However.......this does not diminish the accomplishments of Nadal one bit.
I think Nadal would still be GREAT no matter what era he played in or no matter who he played (muster, bruguera, borg, vilas etc.)
Nadal is a once in a decade type of player. The over/under on Nadal and FO wins in his career is 3....and I'll take the over.

 

[Zaragoza]

Federer is a stronger opponent on clay than Coria, Gaudio or Ferrero in their primes.
The 2005-2007 Federer would beat these guys in their primes on clay most of the times. Indeed Federer is 2-0 against Coria on clay (Hamburg 2004 and 2005) and 2-0 against Gaudio (Gstaad 2003 and Hamburg 2004). The only reason Federer didn´t win so many titles on clay is because he had to play Nadal.
It´s true that after Federer the Davydenkos, Nalbandians and Robredos aren´t so good on clay compared to the top 2 but Federer alone is probably a harder competition than all of those guys who won the FO once together.

If you ask me, I think the competition on grass is weaker. Who is after Federer? Nadal made the final last year in Wimbledon simply because he is a great player but he´s a "beginner" on grass. Roddick woke up in August last year, we will see what he is able to do this year. Hewitt isn´t a threat anymore. Blake and Ljubicic aren´t Grand Slam players. Djokovic and Murray could be good on grass but they still need to prove. Ancic isn´t there yet.
Berdych, Soderling, Karlovic...where are they when it matters?
Remember last year´s Wimbledon semifinalists? Baghdatis and Bjorkman at 34.

 

[Morrissey]

Federer is a stronger opponent on clay than Coria, Gaudio or Ferrero in their primes.
The 2005-2007 Federer would beat these guys in their primes on clay most of the times. Indeed Federer is 2-0 against Coria on clay (Hamburg 2004 and 2005) and 2-0 against Gaudio (Gstaad 2003 and Hamburg 2004). The only reason Federer didn´t win so many titles on clay is because he had to play Nadal.
It´s true that after Federer the Davydenkos, Nalbandians and Robredos aren´t so good on clay compared to the top 2 but Federer alone is probably a harder competition than all of those guys who won the FO once together.

If you ask me, I think the competition on grass is weaker. Who is after Federer? Nadal made the final last year in Wimbledon simply because he is a great player but he´s a "beginner" on grass. Roddick woke up in August last year, we will see what he is able to do this year. Hewitt isn´t a threat anymore. Blake and Ljubicic aren´t Grand Slam players. Djokovic and Murray could be good on grass but they still need to prove. Ancic isn´t there yet.
Berdych, Soderling, Karlovic...where are they when it matters?
Remember last year´s Wimbledon semifinalists? Baghdatis and Bjorkman at 34.

You pretty much read my mind there. It´s that Federer of 05-07 would own Ferrero in his prime. Including Coria and Gaudio as well, a combined 4-0 against those 2 in their best years. If Fed had played Guga five times like against Nadal what would his record be? I know he lost once but if they played more often do you think Fed would have turned the tide? A prime Fed vs a prime Guga on clay. Would Guga go undefeated 5 times like Nadal has? That is the question.

 

[Morrissey]

Federer is a stronger opponent on clay than Coria, Gaudio or Ferrero in their primes.
The 2005-2007 Federer would beat these guys in their primes on clay most of the times. Indeed Federer is 2-0 against Coria on clay (Hamburg 2004 and 2005) and 2-0 against Gaudio (Gstaad 2003 and Hamburg 2004). The only reason Federer didn´t win so many titles on clay is because he had to play Nadal.
It´s true that after Federer the Davydenkos, Nalbandians and Robredos aren´t so good on clay compared to the top 2 but Federer alone is probably a harder competition than all of those guys who won the FO once together.

If you ask me, I think the competition on grass is weaker. Who is after Federer? Nadal made the final last year in Wimbledon simply because he is a great player but he´s a "beginner" on grass. Roddick woke up in August last year, we will see what he is able to do this year. Hewitt isn´t a threat anymore. Blake and Ljubicic aren´t Grand Slam players. Djokovic and Murray could be good on grass but they still need to prove. Ancic isn´t there yet.
Berdych, Soderling, Karlovic...where are they when it matters?
Remember last year´s Wimbledon semifinalists? Baghdatis and Bjorkman at 34.

Also the Fedfanboys look for any little way possible to downplay what Nadal has done and is still doing on clay and to their precious Fed. They´ll even say there´s no competition on clay. Well there´s certainly more competition on clay than grass, that´s for sure. Outside of Roddick what do you have? Murray and Joker are still green in grand slams and still need to prove themselves in the big stage. Hewitt is done and Nalby is in the same league as Ljubicic and Blake in grand slams. The league of chokers. Fed can win Wimby another 3-4 years easy if Nadal doesn´t improve his grass game. Roddick certainly won´t do it.

 

[icazares]

I think we are living very happy days: the best hard court/grass player of tennis' history and the best clay player of all times are active at the same time as #1 and #2. We are very lucky people to see that. I personally like Federer best, but c'mon, you have to respect Nadal's dominance and work ethics. I would rate him above any clay player in the recent history anytime. Way above Muster. I can't tell about the 60s, 70s or 80s, but I doubt that such a superb demonstration of energy, athleticity and courage was seen in those years. And Federer, you guys all know, he glides. He has epitomized tennis to the next level. It would be easier if all of us think about both as the great players they are instead of arguing who is best than the other. Federer is clearly best in grass and hard courts. Nadal is a beast on clay.

 

[Larry123]

Also the Fedfanboys look for any little way possible to downplay what Nadal has done and is still doing on clay and to their precious Fed. They´ll even say there´s no competition on clay. Well there´s certainly more competition on clay than grass, that´s for sure. Outside of Roddick what do you have? Murray and Joker are still green in grand slams and still need to prove themselves in the big stage. Hewitt is done and Nalby is in the same league as Ljubicic and Blake in grand slams. The league of chokers. Fed can win Wimby another 3-4 years easy if Nadal doesn´t improve his grass game. Roddick certainly won´t do it.

No, You are wrong. There is a much better competition on grass and a very great competition on hard court compared to clay where the competition is very weak. On clay, there is no contender other than Nadal and Federer. The South American and other Spanish players who are expected to fare well on clay have not done much to be considered seriously. For example, in Monte Carlo, Federer crushed Ferrer quite easily and Almagro loses very often in early rounds. But in grass, there are definitely a larger number of contenders namely Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Gasquet, Hewitt, Ancic, Murray etc all of whom are good grass courters and have already proved themselves. In addition there are big servers like karlovic, Joachim Johanson etc who are always dangerous on grass. Thus there is definitely much greater competition on grass than clay. The number of players who can challenge Nadal on clay is far less compared to the number of players who can challenge Federer on grass. For example, on grass, even Karlovic on a good day is capable of giving Federer a tough fight, but on clay, no one besides Federer can give Nadal even a decent fight. On hard courts, the competition is at a totally different level with so many good players like Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Gonzalez, Djokovic, Murray, Blake, Berdych, Safin etc. But on clay alone, there is no serious threat outside of Federer and Nadal, just same two people in each and every final and the same champion always. Present clay court tennis is like women's tennis a few years ago (2002) when Venus and Serena walked into each and every final without a hiccup and Serena always won the title.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Federer is a stronger opponent on clay than Coria, Gaudio or Ferrero in their primes.
.

I agree. Federer since last year has clearly established himself as the #2 best clay courter in the world and would easily I repeat EASILY be #1 if not for Nadal (who has argument for top 3 clay courter all-time already).

 

[edberg505]

Federer is a stronger opponent on clay than Coria, Gaudio or Ferrero in their primes.
The 2005-2007 Federer would beat these guys in their primes on clay most of the times. Indeed Federer is 2-0 against Coria on clay (Hamburg 2004 and 2005) and 2-0 against Gaudio (Gstaad 2003 and Hamburg 2004). The only reason Federer didn´t win so many titles on clay is because he had to play Nadal.
It´s true that after Federer the Davydenkos, Nalbandians and Robredos aren´t so good on clay compared to the top 2 but Federer alone is probably a harder competition than all of those guys who won the FO once together.

If you ask me, I think the competition on grass is weaker. Who is after Federer? Nadal made the final last year in Wimbledon simply because he is a great player but he´s a "beginner" on grass. Roddick woke up in August last year, we will see what he is able to do this year. Hewitt isn´t a threat anymore. Blake and Ljubicic aren´t Grand Slam players. Djokovic and Murray could be good on grass but they still need to prove. Ancic isn´t there yet.
Berdych, Soderling, Karlovic...where are they when it matters?
Remember last year´s Wimbledon semifinalists? Baghdatis and Bjorkman at 34.

I can feel pretty confident in saying that Ancic would have been in the finals had he been on the opposite side of the draw of Federer. Actually Federer took down most of the decent grass court players on his side of the draw. Gasquet who owns a 2 grass court titles, Berdych who was in the finals of Halle and took Federer to 3 sets there, and Ancic as I mentioned before he beat in the quarters. And if I'm not mistaken I think Karlovic didn't even play in Wimby last year.

 

[illkhiboy]

Hewitt is done and Nalby is in the same league as Ljubicic and Blake in grand slams. The league of chokers. Fed can win Wimby another 3-4 years easy if Nadal doesn´t improve his grass game. Roddick certainly won´t do it.

Hewitt has performed miserably last couple years but he hasn't had a bad grass court season yet. He won Queen's last year and made the Wimbledon quarters. And Nalbandian has made the semis of all Slams while Blake has only made the quarters at the US Open. Ljubicic has mostly been out in the first or second round of Slams save his good performances at AO and RG last year. Those are bad comparisons.

 

[illkhiboy]

No, You are wrong. There is a much better competition on grass and a very great competition on hard court compared to clay where the competition is very weak. On clay, there is no contender other than Nadal and Federer. The South American and other Spanish players who are expected to fare well on clay have not done much to be considered seriously. For example, in Monte Carlo, Federer crushed Ferrer quite easily and Almagro loses very often in early rounds.

I say that's just because Federer is damn good at clay. Ferrer has previously troubled Nadal on clay so I guess Federer is just a bad match-up for Ferrer. And Federer obviously faces more trouble on clay than he does on grass. He's simply lost more games/sets on clay than on grass in the last 2-3 years.

But in grass, there are definitely a larger number of contenders namely Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Gasquet, Hewitt, Ancic, Murray etc all of whom are good grass courters and have already proved themselves. In addition there are big servers like karlovic, Joachim Johanson etc who are always dangerous on grass. Thus there is definitely much greater competition on grass than clay.

Perhaps the fact that Nadal with limited grass court experience made the Wimbledon finals and Baghdatis with his "grass is for cows" statement made the Semi-Final is a testifies that there is no competition on grass? However, Baghdatis beat Hewitt in the quarterfinals and Nadal is a fierce competitor so I don't think their results were a fluke. Interesting thing, all the players you named as good grasscourters save Murray & Roddick have also proved themselves on clay. Ancic gave Federer a tougher fight at RG than at Wimbledon, and even took out Robredo at Roland Garros.

The number of players who can challenge Nadal on clay is far less compared to the number of players who can challenge Federer on grass. For example, on grass, even Karlovic on a good day is capable of giving Federer a tough fight, but on clay, no one besides Federer can give Nadal even a decent fight. On hard courts, the competition is at a totally different level with so many good players like Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Gonzalez, Djokovic, Murray, Blake, Berdych, Safin etc. But on clay alone, there is no serious threat outside of Federer and Nadal, just same two people in each and every final and the same champion always. Present clay court tennis is like women's tennis a few years ago (2002) when Venus and Serena walked into each and every final without a hiccup and Serena always won the title.

Mathieu IMO gave Nadal a tougher fight last year at RG than did Federer. Nadal and Matheiu fought it out for 5 hours! That's more than a "decent" fight! The previous year, Nadal also had a very tough time with Grosjean.
And if you are naming Karlovic and J Johansson as tough competitors on grass, what about Acususo, Almagro (the fact that he's lost a few early rounds perhaps means that the competition is tough?), Gaudio, Ferrero, Ferrer, Gonzalez, Djokovic, Berdych, Davydenko, Seppi,

 

[noeledmonds]

However.......this does not diminish the accomplishments of Nadal one bit.
I think Nadal would still be GREAT no matter what era he played in or no matter who he played (muster, bruguera, borg, vilas etc.)
Nadal is a once in a decade type of player. The over/under on Nadal and FO wins in his career is 3....and I'll take the over.

I agree that whilst Nadal keeps winning that he cannot be criticised for his weak competition. However too much is made of his winning streak, as I have stated before streaks only really became considered important recently. You don't here people talking about Lendl's record indoor streak in discussions on him. Nadal has already achived great status, but this is down to his consecutive FO titles (and 14-0 record there) along with his MS titles on clay. Talking about Nadal being greater than Borg is way too pre-mature though.

Federer is a stronger opponent on clay than Coria, Gaudio or Ferrero in their primes.

Regardless of whether you belive this to be true or not you must understand that the likes of Coria, Gaudio and Ferrero are still part of the competition today. These players won titles just a few years ago and therefore should be the players challanging up and coming champions. (I am not sure what makes you think that Federer is stronger than Ferrero on clay anway. Ferrero has 8 clay court titles including 3 MS and one FO. Ferrero beat a 2001 Kuerten in the final of a MS, and beat Coria in a MS final too. He beat Moya in 3 finals on clay. He also reached the FO final on another occasion.)