Federer on Clay

[Flash O'Groove]

Did you see Fed's draws (2005-2008) to get to most of those French Open finals? That says alot

What? Davydenko, Nalbandian, Monfils, Del Potro, Djokovic. Are they inferior clay courters than the 90's RG semi-finalist like Larsson, Dewulf, Rosset, Rafter, Pioline, Meligeni, or worst: Sampras?

 

[monfed]

absolutely disagree ..

coria did have 2 weaknesses that could be exploited , even on clay, his serve and relative lack of power off both wings

you do realise federer is 2-0 vs both coria and gaudio on clay , all matches from 2003-05 when both were in their primes

LOL @ almagro being able to grind down federer. Federer's movement and defense on clay ( or anywhere else for that matter ) is miles better.

If you can end points quickly on any court, you do it .

watch federer vs del potro in RG 2009 for an instance where he defended ridiculously win and outlasted an opponent playing quality clay court tennis.

watch federer vs coria in hamburg 04 , you could barely make out the difference in quality of movement and defense b/w these 2.

watch rome 06 final vs nadal - ridiculous offense and defense from federer. Only rafa from the past 30 years or so could've survived that level of play and even he barely did so.

H2H means **** all to me,sorry. Fed leads the grass H2H against Pete 1-0 but everyone and the sun knows that Pete's a better player on fast grass than Federer. He has far more potent weapons to hurt Federer with on fast grass than Fed and I say this as a hardcore Federer fan.

Federer is a far more accomplished player on HC than Ralph but the latter leads 2-0 at the AO and leads the outdoor HC H2H. This is why I don't pay attention to the H2H,if anything it should be read with a grain of salt.

Typically the greatest claycourters have been the kinda players that grind their opponents to dust, Kuerten,Brugera,Muster,Wilander,Nadal, Borg,Vilas,Ferrero,Coria are exponents of traditional claycourt tennis.
Fed's style just isn't that. He tries to keep the points short and win free points on his serve,that's NOT claycourt tennis AT ALL,sure it helps him win but it's not claycourt tennis in the least bit. Fed simply translates his HC game onto the clay and it works for him, just like Ralph translates his clay game on the HC which works well for him(as the courts have gotten progressively slower and higher bouncing)

And Fed's win against Coria and Kuerten came at Hamburg which is a claycourt but it plays like nothing a traditional claycourt like RG/MC/Rome,instead plays more like Madrid and is arguably quicker and lower bouncing than Madrid. Kuerten gave Fed a straight sets thrashing at RG 04 whilst in the middle of Fed's prime and Fed couldn't even get to a tiebreaker(did beating Kuerten at Hamburg come of any use?).

It's not a shock loss when you get dismantled in straights,it's called getting outplayed by a better claycourter ,plain n simple.

To summarise, on a traditional claycourt like Rome/MC/RG/Barcelona, Fed would've lost more times than not against the likes of Coria/Ferrero/Kuerten/Gaudio/ which means he's not a better claycourter than the aforementioned,not in the slightest.

It's OK. Federer doesn't have to be the best on every surface, his versatility is enough to crown him GOAT.

 

[Eragon]

H2H means **** all to me,sorry. Fed leads the grass H2H against Pete 1-0 but everyone and the sun knows that Pete's a better player on fast grass than Federer. He has far more potent weapons to hurt Federer with on fast grass than Fed and I say this as a hardcore Federer fan.

Federer is a far more accomplished player on HC than Ralph but the latter leads 2-0 at the AO and leads the outdoor HC H2H. This is why I don't pay attention to the H2H,if anything it should be read with a grain of salt.

Typically the greatest claycourters have been the kinda players that grind their opponents to dust, Kuerten,Brugera,Muster,Wilander,Nadal, Borg,Vilas,Ferrero,Coria are exponents of traditional claycourt tennis.
Fed's style just isn't that. He tries to keep the points short and win free points on his serve,that's NOT claycourt tennis AT ALL,sure it helps him win but it's not claycourt tennis in the least bit. Fed simply translates his HC game onto the clay and it works for him, just like Ralph translates his clay game on the HC which works well for him(as the courts have gotten progressively slower and higher bouncing)

And Fed's win against Coria and Kuerten came at Hamburg which is a claycourt but it plays like nothing a traditional claycourt like RG/MC/Rome,instead plays more like Madrid and is arguably quicker and lower bouncing than Madrid. Kuerten gave Fed a straight sets thrashing at RG 04 whilst in the middle of Fed's prime and Fed couldn't even get to a tiebreaker(did beating Kuerten at Hamburg come of any use?).

It's not a shock loss when you get dismantled in straights,it's called getting outplayed by a better claycourter ,plain n simple.

To summarise, on a traditional claycourt like Rome/MC/RG/Barcelona, Fed would've lost more times than not against the likes of Coria/Ferrero/Kuerten/Gaudio/ which means he's not a better claycourter than the aforementioned,not in the slightest.

It's OK. Federer doesn't have to be the best on every surface, his versatility is enough to crown him GOAT.

This nonsense rivals THUNDERVOLLEY's yap-yap about history and tradition.

 

[abmk]

H2H means **** all to me,sorry. Fed leads the grass H2H against Pete 1-0 but everyone and the sun knows that Pete's a better player on fast grass than Federer. He has far more potent weapons to hurt Federer with on fast grass than Fed and I say this as a hardcore Federer fan.

Federer is a far more accomplished player on HC than Ralph but the latter leads 2-0 at the AO and leads the outdoor HC H2H. This is why I don't pay attention to the H2H,if anything it should be read with a grain of salt.

Typically the greatest claycourters have been the kinda players that grind their opponents to dust, Kuerten,Brugera,Muster,Wilander,Nadal, Borg,Vilas,Ferrero,Coria are exponents of traditional claycourt tennis.
Fed's style just isn't that. He tries to keep the points short and win free points on his serve,that's NOT claycourt tennis AT ALL,sure it helps him win but it's not claycourt tennis in the least bit. Fed simply translates his HC game onto the clay and it works for him, just like Ralph translates his clay game on the HC which works well for him(as the courts have gotten progressively slower and higher bouncing)

And Fed's win against Coria and Kuerten came at Hamburg which is a claycourt but it plays like nothing a traditional claycourt like RG/MC/Rome,instead plays more like Madrid and is arguably quicker and lower bouncing than Madrid. Kuerten gave Fed a straight sets thrashing at RG 04 whilst in the middle of Fed's prime and Fed couldn't even get to a tiebreaker(did beating Kuerten at Hamburg come of any use?).

It's not a shock loss when you get dismantled in straights,it's called getting outplayed by a better claycourter ,plain n simple.

To summarise, on a traditional claycourt like Rome/MC/RG/Barcelona, Fed would've lost more times than not against the likes of Coria/Ferrero/Kuerten/Gaudio/ which means he's not a better claycourter than the aforementioned,not in the slightest.

It's OK. Federer doesn't have to be the best on every surface, his versatility is enough to crown him GOAT.

yeah, only one tiny problem with your argument :

federer is far and away more accomplished than coria and gaudio on clay. Its not just the h2h. ( I thought there was no need to state the obvious, but there you go ! )

kuerten is of course a better CCer than fed, ferrero is close to him , but coria and gaudio , no ...

you do realise kuerten didn't just grind down opponents on clay. He hit plenty of winners off both wings - FH, BH and got a lot of free points off his big serve ?

also federer doesn't move on clay like he does on grass and HC. He slides quite a bit more on clay as he should be doing.

hamburg is quite a bit slower than madrid, only it is lower bouncing and that is a factor in federer's favour.

of course federer isn't close to the best on clay, but he is clearly above coria, gaudio ... I'd put him along with vilas, bruguera, muster, courier, ferrero and below lendl, wilander, kuerten ...

I disagree with the initial part as well. federer on fast grass would be just as potent as sampras, if not more.

 

[namelessone]

yeah, only one tiny problem with your argument :

federer is far and away more accomplished than coria and gaudio on clay. Its not just the h2h. ( I thought there was no need to state the obvious, but there you go ! )

kuerten is of course a better CCer than fed, ferrero is close to him , but coria and gaudio , no ...

you do realise kuerten didn't just grind down opponents on clay. He hit plenty of winners off both wings - FH, BH and got a lot of free points off his big serve ?

also federer doesn't move on clay like he does on grass and HC. He slides quite a bit more on clay as he should be doing.

hamburg is quite a bit slower than madrid, only it is lower bouncing and that is a factor in federer's favour.

of course federer isn't close to the best on clay, but he is clearly above coria, gaudio ... I'd put him along with vilas, bruguera, muster, courier, ferrero and below lendl, wilander, kuerten ...

I disagree with the initial part as well. federer on fast grass would be just as potent as sampras, if not more.

This is pretty much where I place Fed as well. I believe that in any other era he would have won at least 3 RG's if not more.

The people that think Fed really isn't all that great on clay or not a "true" claycourter(apparently those can only come from spain and southamerica) need to get their head checked.

Jesus, look at the stats:

Federer has:

-7 more CC MS finals that Muster, 10 more than Corretja, 11 more than Moya, 12 more than Kuerten, 10 more than Bruguera, 10 more than JCF, 14 more than Chang, 11 more than Costa, 12 more than Courier, 10 more than Medvedev, 13 more than Kafelnikov, 12 more than Mantilla and so on. You can literally pick any good CC'er in the last 20 years and Fed's clay MS pedigree blows theirs out of the water.

-all of those guys, with the exception of Kuerten/Courier, haven't reached more than ONE RG final. Federer has FIVE(all lost to CGOAT) and had another two SF.

Yet people will routinely hail these guys as "real" dirtballers(from the "strong era"), mainly because they played so much on clay. Whereas Fed, with far fewer CC tourneys entered in his career has had way better results than most of them.

 

[egn]

And Fed's win against Coria and Kuerten came at Hamburg which is a claycourt but it plays like nothing a traditional claycourt like RG/MC/Rome,instead plays more like Madrid and is arguably quicker and lower bouncing than Madrid. Kuerten gave Fed a straight sets thrashing at RG 04 whilst in the middle of Fed's prime and Fed couldn't even get to a tiebreaker(did beating Kuerten at Hamburg come of any use?).

What are you some 12 year old who just started watching tennis. Hamburg was known for being the slowest of the 3 clay court master series. It did have the lower bounce though so at least you were half right. However clay is clay there are variety of factors.

Man we sight one loss as the main selling point. Is Nadal **** on grass because Brands gave him a straight set beating? No single losses happen every now and then. I'll agree that Fed isn't the best on clay and if we took Nadal out I feel as if it might have benefited Coria huge because he would have way more confidence going into the 2005 French Open and might have just not mentally collapsed thinking about how 2004 was his only real chance.

 

[tudwell]

Given that resume, one wonders about his inability to follow through against his prime competitor. The numbers look good until you factor in that he could never beat Nadal on Nadal's home turf, while Nadal could beat Fed on Fed's home turf. I think that sums it up.

Well, Federer is 4-0 against Nadal at the WTF, with three of those matches ending in straight sets. So Federer has his little stronghold against Nadal, too, although clearly owning your rival in slam finals is more impressive.

 

[Sorana fan]

blah blah blah

He has won RG only once, he's far behind a lot of people on clay.

Grand Slam is the measure of greatness. He is just average on clay.

There are 25 men who won it at least twice.

The second is the first loser. Period.

 

[Eragon]

Yap yap yap yap

I'm sorry, I don't understand troll.

 

[swedenparty]

He has won RG only once, he's far behind a lot of people on clay.

Grand Slam is the measure of greatness. He is just average on clay.

There are 25 men who won it at least twice.

The second is the first loser. Period.

LOL, did your girlfriend leave you because you much uglier than Fed or something?

 

[Phoenix1983]

He has won RG only once, he's far behind a lot of people on clay.

Grand Slam is the measure of greatness. He is just average on clay.

There are 25 men who won it at least twice.

The second is the first loser. Period.

In the Open Era, there are only 8 men who have won the FO twice or more:

Nadal (x8 )
Borg (x6)
Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten (x3)
Kodes, Courier, Bruguera (x2)

Federer is definitely a Top 10 claycourter of the Open Era (he is one of the two best 1-time winners, along with Vilas).

 

[President]

H2H means **** all to me,sorry. Fed leads the grass H2H against Pete 1-0 but everyone and the sun knows that Pete's a better player on fast grass than Federer. He has far more potent weapons to hurt Federer with on fast grass than Fed and I say this as a hardcore Federer fan.

Federer is a far more accomplished player on HC than Ralph but the latter leads 2-0 at the AO and leads the outdoor HC H2H. This is why I don't pay attention to the H2H,if anything it should be read with a grain of salt.

Typically the greatest claycourters have been the kinda players that grind their opponents to dust, Kuerten,Brugera,Muster,Wilander,Nadal, Borg,Vilas,Ferrero,Coria are exponents of traditional claycourt tennis.
Fed's style just isn't that. He tries to keep the points short and win free points on his serve,that's NOT claycourt tennis AT ALL,sure it helps him win but it's not claycourt tennis in the least bit. Fed simply translates his HC game onto the clay and it works for him, just like Ralph translates his clay game on the HC which works well for him(as the courts have gotten progressively slower and higher bouncing)

And Fed's win against Coria and Kuerten came at Hamburg which is a claycourt but it plays like nothing a traditional claycourt like RG/MC/Rome,instead plays more like Madrid and is arguably quicker and lower bouncing than Madrid. Kuerten gave Fed a straight sets thrashing at RG 04 whilst in the middle of Fed's prime and Fed couldn't even get to a tiebreaker(did beating Kuerten at Hamburg come of any use?).

It's not a shock loss when you get dismantled in straights,it's called getting outplayed by a better claycourter ,plain n simple.

To summarise, on a traditional claycourt like Rome/MC/RG/Barcelona, Fed would've lost more times than not against the likes of Coria/Ferrero/Kuerten/Gaudio/ which means he's not a better claycourter than the aforementioned,not in the slightest.

It's OK. Federer doesn't have to be the best on every surface, his versatility is enough to crown him GOAT.

Federer's game IS actually well suited to clay though, he moves beautifully on the surface (footwork on clay as good as anyone's has ever been and quite a bit better than some who actually won RG multiple times like Courier or even Kuerten) and hits HEAVY spin from both his forehand and his backhand. Fantastic endurance as well and one of the best in tennis history at constructing points (he wasn't just some bang bang slapper like James Blake or even Sampras, Roger actually constructs points intelligently and over time). If we were talking about Sampras, you would have a point as his game is wholly unsuited for clay but Federer has/had all the tools to be one of the best claycourters ever and probably would have won at least 3 or 4 RG titles if not up against the clay GOAT and a bad matchup to boot. In fact, in some ways you could argue his game is better suited (in a few aspects ) to clay courts than grass courts. Traditionally strong grasscourters (from late 80's onward) had very explosive movement, very flat strokes, and a huge serve. Federer isn't as explosive moving forward as someone like Sampras or Rafter IMO and he lacks the pure firepower on the serve that guys like Goran, Becker, Krajicek, and Petros had as well. His upbringing on clay shows as well because he hits his strokes with much more topspin than a lot of these 90's grasscourters, he doesn't penetrate a grass court quite as much. Not saying Federer isn't overall better on grass than clay but from the way you are talking about him you would think he was Pete Sampras or something. Federer is a fanatic clay court player, especially from 2005-2011. His ownage of almost all of the strong claycourters you mentioned just illustrates that.

I think you just want to say Federer is a weak claycourter to demean Nadal and his accomplishments (which shows you hate Nadal even more than you like Federer).

 

[The_Order]

huh, taking nadal out of the equation and b/w putting another strong CCer in the mix - both are hypothetical.

Still you fail to understand. you don't HAVE to do anything when it comes to hypothetical situations.

If Nadal didn't exist, there wasn't going to magically be another strong CC like Wilander suddenly coming out of nowhere.

If you want to say federer didn't win those RGs only because rafa is the clay court GOAT and that other strong CCers couldn't have beaten federer , that's not correct, nowhere near true.

Nowhere did I say that. Absolute crap from you yet again.

Hence the point about replacing rafa with another strong CCer in a hypothetical scenario

What are you on about, so if Rafa didn't exist, some guy was going to come from nowhere and be a strong CC player and deny Fed majors? LOL.

why don't you take out both nadal and djokovic and say federer wins 7 RGs and say that would be his best surface :roll:

Because Fed would've beat Djoker in 06, 07 and imo 08 as well.

reality is taking rafa out of the field would weaken it considerably . you have to atleast put in another strong CCer, if you want to take out rafa

I don't have to do anything. Once again, if Rafa wasn't born, another strong CC wasn't just going to show up from nowhere the field would've stayed the same and Fed would've won 6 RG titles and you would be on here talking about how strong his competition was.

so, yes, in any other era, clay would still be federer's worst surface based on his own skill set, performance over the years and comfort level on that surface. He'd win multiple RGs, but he's not near rafa or borg level on clay to reach 5-6 RGs ..

The point isn't that Fed is on Borg or Rafa's level, but he's certainly a LOT better on clay than anyone gives him credit for.

Think back to his level in that Rome 06 final. I'd say only Rafa could overcome Fed's level that day. Maybe also Borg.

 

[namelessone]

Federer's game IS actually well suited to clay though, he moves beautifully on the surface (footwork on clay as good as anyone's has ever been and quite a bit better than some who actually won RG multiple times like Courier or even Kuerten) and hits HEAVY spin from both his forehand and his backhand. Fantastic endurance as well and one of the best in tennis history at constructing points (he wasn't just some bang bang slapper like James Blake or even Sampras, Roger actually constructs points intelligently and over time). If we were talking about Sampras, you would have a point as his game is wholly unsuited for clay but Federer has/had all the tools to be one of the best claycourters ever and probably would have won at least 3 or 4 RG titles if not up against the clay GOAT and a bad matchup to boot. In fact, in some ways you could argue his game is better suited (in a few aspects ) to clay courts than grass courts. Traditionally strong grasscourters (from late 80's onward) had very explosive movement, very flat strokes, and a huge serve. Federer isn't as explosive moving forward as someone like Sampras or Rafter IMO and he lacks the pure firepower on the serve that guys like Goran, Becker, Krajicek, and Petros had as well. His upbringing on clay shows as well because he hits his strokes with much more topspin than a lot of these 90's grasscourters, he doesn't penetrate a grass court quite as much. Not saying Federer isn't overall better on grass than clay but from the way you are talking about him you would think he was Pete Sampras or something. Federer is a fanatic clay court player, especially from 2005-2011. His ownage of almost all of the strong claycourters you mentioned just illustrates that.

I think you just want to say Federer is a weak claycourter to demean Nadal and his accomplishments (which shows you hate Nadal even more than you like Federer).

QFT.

It's really astounding to see the "reasoning" of such individuals.

Nadal isn't all that great because he was pushed/beaten a couple of times in his youth by "real" claycourters like Gaudio/Coria . This sentence sets up Gaudio/Coria and their kind(generic spanish/southamerican CC'ers) as being damn good(heck, they could hang with a future multiple RG winner, amirite?)

Fed, who is weak on clay mind you(because he loses to Nadal, heck he even lost to old Kuerten once), beats these "great" claycourters in 2004/2005(in their best years) and his record on clay absolutely curbstomps what any CC'er except Nadal has done in the last 20 years. More CC MS finals, more RG finals and so on.

I also find it funny how people constantly overhype the CC"ers of the 90's - early 00's, guys that played mostly on clay(some of them entered a huge nr of CC tourneys every year) and they STILL have worse numbers than a "weakling" like Federer in the clay tournies that matter(read:the spring ones).

There is no doubt in my mind, that in RG at least, Fed would have at least 3-4 RG without Nadal and this is a conservative estimate. This is a guy with 5 finals here and another 2 SF. He knows what it takes to make it far on clay.

 

[ibbi]

Yes, Nadal's capability on Clay far surpasses Federer's on Hards. I thought that was general knowledge.

Nadal knew what the tour was when he picked up a racquet. It's his fault he didn't temper his game to be more suited to the most important surface of his time.

Dude, your argument got canned. This comeback is more lame than FDR.

 

[monfed]

Federer's game IS actually well suited to clay though, he moves beautifully on the surface (footwork on clay as good as anyone's has ever been and quite a bit better than some who actually won RG multiple times like Courier or even Kuerten) and hits HEAVY spin from both his forehand and his backhand.

Well while you're at it you could've just said Fed's got a better 1HBH than Kuerten and be done with it.

Fantastic endurance as well and one of the best in tennis history at constructing points (he wasn't just some bang bang slapper like James Blake or even Sampras, Roger actually constructs points intelligently and over time).

Where did Blake and Pete come into this discussion? I've been comparing Fed to seasoned claycourters like Coria/Ferrero/Gaudio/Kuerten and yes Fed's clay game is inferior to Coria/Ferrero/Gaudio and about 2-3 leagues below Kuerten.

If we were talking about Sampras, you would have a point as his game is wholly unsuited for clay but Federer has/had all the tools to be one of the best claycourters ever and probably would have won at least 3 or 4 RG titles if not up against the clay GOAT and a bad matchup to boot.

Ralph wasn't present in RG 04 but Fed got an arguably bigger *** kicking from Kuerten than any that Ralph handed out(with the exception of RG 08 ). Let me remind you that Guga beat Fed in straights and there wasn't even a single tie breaker. Now that is a serious glaring beatdown of a supposed clay court great. Actually Fed was shown his true colours on clay by a clay master.

In fact, in some ways you could argue his game is better suited (in a few aspects ) to clay courts than grass courts.

Yea he's more comfortable on clay than grass,whatever makes you happy! Like I said the straw clutching in your argument is not just absurd but hilarious so congrats! :lol:

Traditionally strong grasscourters (from late 80's onward) had very explosive movement, very flat strokes, and a huge serve. Federer isn't as explosive moving forward as someone like Sampras or Rafter IMO and he lacks the pure firepower on the serve that guys like Goran, Becker, Krajicek, and Petros had as well.

Sure but the current grass doesn't play anything like it did in the 90s. I've stated in numerous threads that Pete's the greatest fast grass player of all time. Yes I agree Pete's more explosive than Fed.

His upbringing on clay shows as well because he hits his strokes with much more topspin than a lot of these 90's grasscourters, he doesn't penetrate a grass court quite as much.

Upbringing doesn't mean squat in the larger scheme of things,it's what surface a player is comfy on that counts. Becker was brought up on clay but we all know how he's fared on it and what surface he prefers,ditto for Novak who's game is suited to slow HC.

Not saying Federer isn't overall better on grass than clay but from the way you are talking about him you would think he was Pete Sampras or something.

You're taking one thing and calling it something else. Nowhere did I make absurd claims such as Fed is like Pete on clay. It's YOU who's brought up this inanity.

Federer is a fanatic clay court player, especially from 2005-2011. His ownage of almost all of the strong claycourters you mentioned just illustrates that.

Sure when you have to beat HCers who try to adapt on a clay court,Fed's great. When he has to come up against quality claycourters like Kuerten he gets pummelled into submission as RG 04 clearly shows. I've said this before in previous posts that Fed translates his HC game well onto clay and it works because there isn't a single bloody claycourter of note(besides Ralph). Heck even Novak tries to adapt to clay.

I think you just want to say Federer is a weak claycourter to demean Nadal and his accomplishments (which shows you hate Nadal even more than you like Federer).

I think you're hyping up Federer's claycourt abilities in order to try and pump up Ralph's weak clay competition.

 

[namelessone]

Where did Blake and Pete come into this discussion? I've been comparing Fed to seasoned claycourters like Coria/Ferrero/Gaudio/Kuerten and yes Fed's clay game is inferior to Coria/Ferrero/Gaudio and about 2-3 leagues below Kuerten.

This is pure comedy gold.

Coria/Ferrero/Gaudio/Kuerten have 6 finals between them(3 of those belonging to Kuerten), Fed has 5 and another 2 SF(stopped by Nadal and Djoko).

According to your logic, Fed has an inferior clay game to Coria/Ferrero/Gaudio yet he absolutely curbstomps both on their clay MS record and their RG record. How the hell can he have an inferior game but not better, MUCH BETTER results than those guys up there on their preferred surface and Fed's worst?

Something doesn't click.

Ralph wasn't present in RG 04 but Fed got an arguably bigger *** kicking from Kuerten than any that Ralph handed out(with the exception of RG 08 ). Let me remind you that Guga beat Fed in straights and there wasn't even a single tie breaker. Now that is a serious glaring beatdown of a supposed clay court great. Actually Fed was shown his true colours on clay by a clay master.

Yes, one match always gives us a reasonable look at how future matches will play out :facepalm:

You would have a point if Fed faced "old school claycourters" and consistently lost but guess what, the generation that survived until Nadal came along ,the so called "strong era" of CC tennis(late 90's - early 00's) was absolutely curbstomped by Federer on clay, not just in overall clay results, but in DIRECT MATCHES.

Upbringing doesn't mean squat in the larger scheme of things,it's what surface a player is comfy on that counts. Becker was brought up on clay but we all know how he's fared on it and what surface he prefers,ditto for Novak who's game is suited to slow HC.

Slow HC means that you can do very well on clay. Novak has made 4 RG SF(beaten 3 times by Nadal, once by Fed) and one final(beaten by Nadal). No Nadal and his record is arguably as good as in AO. Maybe he doesn't win all of those missed finals, but I think he would win at least 2.

Yeah, upbringing doesn't mean squat, that's why HC grown Americans have had so much success on clay historically. :roll:

Why do you think Europeans and South Americans are usually the ones to win on clay? Because they grew up on this stuff, regardless of how well their games are suited for faster surfaces. There are guys that transcend surface traditions and Federer is one of them.

Sure when you have to beat HCers who try to adapt on a clay court,Fed's great. When he has to come up against quality claycourters like Kuerten he gets pummelled into submission as RG 04 clearly shows. I've said this before in previous posts that Fed translates his HC game well onto clay and it works because there isn't a single bloody claycourter of note(besides Ralph). Heck even Novak tries to adapt to clay.

You keep refering to this match since it seems the only thing that keeps your argument afloat except even that sinks when we remember that it was ONE MATCH. The funny thing is that Federer beat Kuerten with a BAGEL in Hamburg in 2002 and Kuerten had won RG the year beforehand. Or do Fed wins in Hamburg don't count?

I think you're hyping up Federer's claycourt abilities in order to try and pump up Ralph's weak clay competition.

Ok, weak era, got it. Now if the previous era(90's) were so immensely strong then why do their main representatives have such weak CLAY results as opposed to Federer(the weaker one from this weak generation). I mean, they usually reached around 4-5 CC MS finals on average(Fed has 14) and with the exception of Courier and Kuerten most couldn't make it past ONE RG final.

Yes, the 90's CC were specialists but what this means is that they played A LOT of smaller clay tournies to gain points in weaker fields and even so(having only clay to worry about) they didn't exactly turn out great results. Probably THE claycourter of the 90's(at least image wise), Muster, sucked in RG when compared to his legend, with only one title won.

Remember, when these guys played, the tour was still mostly HC, guys were choosing to hone their skills on HC just like the guys of today, the only difference is that there were more small clay venues which the clay specialists could play so they chose to go there. It's not like players collectively shouted "clay sucks" circa 2004 and migrated towards HC, ushering in the age of Nadal.

What happened is that Nadal's early clay prowess sucked away all motivation for younger players(remember, Nadal was a young guy as well at the time) to get good on clay and some of the guys that were already good(like Gaudio/Coria) very quickly faded away. This was hammered home even when he beat the best player in the world(who was killing it elsewhere) countless times on this surface.

Remember Coria's mammoth efforts in MC and Rome 2005? Federer in 2006 Rome? Yeah, those guys had astounding gameplay in those days and they LOST. What message do you think Nadal sent to future would be CC'ers in those days? Go somewhere else, the clay turf is mine.

 

[President]

Monfed, how do you explain these H2H results. ALL on clay. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Federer stomping ALL of these so called great claycourters on clay.

Federer-Coria: 2-0 on clay
Federer-Gaudio: 2-0 on clay
Federer-Ferrero: 4-0 on clay

These 3 guys (so called strong clay competition of the day) couldn't even get ONE MATCH off of Federer on clay. Your entire argument is based on Kuerten beating Federer once in 2004, while you conveniently ignore the beatdown Federer gave Guga in 2002. Federer has shown IMO that he would demolish the clay specialists of the 90's-early 2000's in general (except for Guga, but he was inconsistent from match to match anyway).

Against todays clay specialists Federer has a great record as well.

Federer-Almagro: 3-0 on clay
Federer-Ferrer: 5-0 on clay
Federer-Monaco: 1-0 on clay

Federer really has NO problem beating traditional clay court specialist type players on clay, I challenge you to present ANY fact that shows the contrary.

 

[namelessone]

Monfed, how do you explain these H2H results. ALL on clay. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Federer stomping ALL of these so called great claycourters on clay.

Federer-Coria: 2-0 on clay
Federer-Gaudio: 2-0 on clay
Federer-Ferrero: 4-0 on clay

These 3 guys (so called strong clay competition of the day) couldn't even get ONE MATCH off of Federer on clay. Your entire argument is based on Kuerten beating Federer once in 2004, while you conveniently ignore the beatdown Federer gave Guga in 2002. Federer has shown IMO that he would demolish the clay specialists of the 90's-early 2000's in general (except for Guga, but he was inconsistent from match to match anyway).

Against todays clay specialists Federer has a great record as well.

Federer-Almagro: 3-0 on clay
Federer-Ferrer: 5-0 on clay
Federer-Monaco: 1-0 on clay

Federer really has NO problem beating traditional clay court specialist type players on clay, I challenge you to present ANY fact that shows the contrary.

Don't bother, he has no facts, all he has is that ONE MATCH where Kuerten beat Fed in RG. All that matters is that Nadal had weak *** clay competition, ok? I would also add that Fed met and beat many of these guys in some of their best years.

It is really mind boggling to see the lengths to which some people will go to just to hate on Nadal, even deniyng their own favorite player some credit on a certain surface. Hyping up the clay past just to hit at the clay present(which is Nadal).

 

[egn]

Where did Blake and Pete come into this discussion? I've been comparing Fed to seasoned claycourters like Coria/Ferrero/Gaudio/Kuerten and yes Fed's clay game is inferior to Coria/Ferrero/Gaudio and about 2-3 leagues below Kuerten.

Which is why he never lost to any of that trio on clay and split his meetings with Guga on clay..

Ralph wasn't present in RG 04 but Fed got an arguably bigger *** kicking from Kuerten than any that Ralph handed out(with the exception of RG 08 ). Let me remind you that Guga beat Fed in straights and there wasn't even a single tie breaker. Now that is a serious glaring beatdown of a supposed clay court great. Actually Fed was shown his true colours on clay by a clay master.

Really. Do we need to go through the Guga, Guadio and Coria losses in the French Open. Coria got beaten by two journeymen in the two biggest matches of his career blowing leads in both. Gaudio there are too many to begin to go into. Kuerten was straight setted by Medvedev in 1999 going in as a huge favorite to the French Open after winning two master series. Losses happen.

 

[DolgoSantoro]

The second is the first loser. Period.

What does this say about Rafa and his incredible achievement of being ranked second in the world for longer than any player in the Open Era ?

It's funny, the extent to which Federer gets his clay ability belittled. Can he beat Nadal on clay consistently? No. But Nadal is the all but unanimous clay GOAT and Federer's been able to rack up some great performances and consistency on the surface that few can match.

 

[Incognito]

Which is why he never lost to any of that trio on clay and split his meetings with Guga on clay..



Really. Do we need to go through the Guga, Guadio and Coria losses in the French Open. Coria got beaten by two journeymen in the two biggest matches of his career blowing leads in both. Gaudio there are too many to begin to go into. Kuerten was straight setted by Medvedev in 1999 going in as a huge favorite to the French Open after winning two master series. Losses happen.

Yeah but when Fed bageled Guga, that was just on Hamburg clay. According to him, like Madrid, Hamburg is not really clay. Only RG, MC and Rome are real clay. According to Monfed, Roger has ZERO masters on clay lol

 

[Sorana fan]

Monfed, how do you explain these H2H results. ALL on clay. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Federer stomping ALL of these so called great claycourters on clay.

Federer-Coria: 2-0 on clay
Federer-Gaudio: 2-0 on clay
Federer-Ferrero: 4-0 on clay

These 3 guys (so called strong clay competition of the day) couldn't even get ONE MATCH off of Federer on clay. Your entire argument is based on Kuerten beating Federer once in 2004, while you conveniently ignore the beatdown Federer gave Guga in 2002. Federer has shown IMO that he would demolish the clay specialists of the 90's-early 2000's in general (except for Guga, but he was inconsistent from match to match anyway).

Against todays clay specialists Federer has a great record as well.

Federer-Almagro: 3-0 on clay
Federer-Ferrer: 5-0 on clay
Federer-Monaco: 1-0 on clay

Federer really has NO problem beating traditional clay court specialist type players on clay, I challenge you to present ANY fact that shows the contrary.

*******: 1GS on clay. Period.

A lot of people better than him on clay.

 

[Sorana fan]

What does this say about Rafa and his incredible achievement of being ranked second in the world for longer than any player in the Open Era?.

ATP Rankings are bs in terms of greatness. They just measure consistency, not greatness.

GS are what matter on this regard.

 

[President]

*******: 1GS on clay. Period.

A lot of people better than him on clay.

Have you ever made a thoughtful post on this forum, even once? You ****ing imbecile clown, GTFO of here. Pathetic waste of humanity. Every single one of your posts just senselessly bashes Federer, you must be like 14 or something.

 

[Incognito]

Have you ever made a thoughtful post on this forum, even once? You ****ing imbecile clown, GTFO of here. Pathetic waste of humanity. Every single one of your posts just senselessly bashes Federer, you must be like 14 or something.

Sorana made her account just to bash Federer. Pathetic really.

 

[Sorana fan]

Have you ever made a thoughtful post on this forum, even once? You ****ing imbecile clown, GTFO of here. Pathetic waste of humanity. Every single one of your posts just senselessly bashes Federer, you must be like 14 or something.

You should be kicked outta here. Behave yourself.

 

[LotusTang]

Sorana made her account just to bash Federer. Pathetic really.

And it's not only Federer, but his significant other as well. Sad individual.

 

[Speranza]

He has won RG only once, he's far behind a lot of people on clay.

Grand Slam is the measure of greatness. He is just average on clay.

There are 25 men who won it at least twice.

The second is the first loser. Period.

ATP Rankings are bs in terms of greatness. They just measure consistency, not greatness.

GS are what matter on this regard.

Surely, even very excitable Nadal trolls endure evidence, no?

 

[Sorana fan]

Sorana made her account just to bash Federer. Pathetic really.

No, you're wrong.

I joined here because I like tennis. I'm fan of different players, but hey, your guy is not one of them.
Some of you, fedfanatics are incapable of accepting criticism. I didnt lie. Federer only won 1 GS on clay. Does it hurt so much? Sorry, reality is tough sometimes.

 

[Sorana fan]

Surely, even very excitable Nadal trolls endure evidence, no?

He has 17, that's right. It doesnt seem realistic to think he can extend it more.

Instead, Rafa is 27 and, depending on his knee, it could be possible to reach and even surpass that number.

Let's wait till both are finished their careers.

 

[Incognito]

No, you're wrong.

I joined here because I like tennis. I'm fan of different players, but hey, your guy is not one of them.
Some of you, fedfanatics are incapable of accepting criticism. I didnt lie. Federer only won 1 GS on clay. Does it hurt so much? Sorry, reality is tough sometimes.

I like Nadal and Federer equally so labelling me a "fedfanatic" is simply wrong. I also like Murray and Juan Martin a lot more than those two.:shock:

 

[Towser83]

To summarise, on a traditional claycourt like Rome/MC/RG/Barcelona, Fed would've lost more times than not against the likes of Coria/Ferrero/Kuerten/Gaudio/ which means he's not a better claycourter than the aforementioned,not in the slightest.

It's OK. Federer doesn't have to be the best on every surface, his versatility is enough to crown him GOAT.

Which is why Federer is 3-0 vs Ferrero at MC/Rome (plus once at Hamburg)?

I do agree there are players with a more natural clay game, but Federer is the better overall play and can generally beat most clay courters, there is no one between Guga and Nadal that he couldn't enjoy a lot of success over.

 

[ultradr]

And Clay is his worst surface :shock:

Nah,... It's just Nadal.

If he played in 90's, his best surfaces would have been clay and Australian
hard courts. He would have won 4+ French, maybe nearing Borg. He would have
done even better than Lendle. He is an ultra baseliner, 21st century version of lendl or Borg.

Of course, assuming Nadal is not there.

 

[MTF07]

He has 17, that's right. It doesnt seem realistic to think he can extend it more.

Instead, Rafa is 27 and, depending on his knee, it could be possible to reach and even surpass that number.

Let's wait till both are finished their careers.

No, it's actually almost entirely unlikely that Nadal reaches that number, mainly due to the fact that he can't win off clay and said grandpa knees.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Federer's best surface is Indoor Hards. But by all means, keep clutching at straws.

Indoor is irrelevant. Majors count, and Nadal did what Federer could not: defeat the opponent on the surface he dominated--in other words, he defeated Federer at Wimbledon.

 

[MTF07]

Nah,... It's just Nadal.

If he played in 90's, his best surfaces would have been clay and Australian
hard courts. He would have won 4+ French, maybe nearing Borg. He would have
done even better than Lendle. He is an ultra baseliner, 21st century version of lendl or Borg.

Of course, assuming Nadal is not there.

Um, no. His best slams would have still been the USO and Wimbledon. And I doubt he would have played anywhere near as much from the baseline in the 90's, certainly not at Wimbledon. Heck, he was still regularly serving and volleying at Wimbledon all the way through 2003.

 

[ARFED]

Did you see Fed's draws (2005-2008) to get to most of those French Open finals? That says alot

Did you see Sampras draws (1997-2002) to get to most of those French Open second rounds?? That says a lot

 

[90's Clay]

FEDERER french Open draws in clay prime:


2005

R64 Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 76 W 6-3, 7-6(0), 6-2 Stats
R32 Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 26 W 7-6(9), 7-5, 6-2 Stats
R16 Carlos Moya (ESP) 15 W 6-1, 6-4, 6-3 Stats
Q Victor Hanescu (ROU) 90 W 6-2, 7-6(3), 6-3 Stats
S Rafael Nadal (ESP) 5 L 3-6, 6-4, 4-6, 3-6 Stats


2006
Roland Garros, France; 29.05.2006; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Diego Hartfield (ARG) 157 W 7-5, 7-6(2), 6-2 Stats
R64 Alejandro Falla (COL) 139 W 6-1, 6-4, 6-3 Stats
R32 Nicolas Massu (CHI) 35 W 6-1, 6-2, 6-7(4), 7-5 Stats
R16 Tomas Berdych (CZE) 20 W 6-3, 6-2, 6-3 Stats
Q Mario Ancic (CRO) 12 W 6-4, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
S David Nalbandian (ARG) 3 W 3-6, 6-4, 5-2 RET Stats
F Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 L 6-1, 1-6, 4-6, 6-7(4) Stats


2007
Roland Garros, France; 28.05.2007; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Michael Russell (USA) 68 W 6-4, 6-2, 6-4 Stats
R64 Thierry Ascione (FRA) 168 W 6-1, 6-2, 7-6(8) Stats
R32 Potito Starace (ITA) 57 W 6-2, 6-3, 6-0 Stats
R16 Mikhail Youzhny (RUS) 15 W 7-6(3), 6-4, 6-4 Stats
Q Tommy Robredo (ESP) 9 W 7-5, 1-6, 6-1, 6-2 Stats
S Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) 4 W 7-5, 7-6(5), 7-6(7) Stats
F Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 L 3-6, 6-4, 3-6, 4-6


2008


Roland Garros, France; 25.05.2008; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Sam Querrey (USA) 40 W 6-4, 6-4, 6-3 Stats
R64 Albert Montanes (ESP) 60 W 6-7(5), 6-1, 6-0, 6-4 Stats
R32 Mario Ancic (CRO) 46 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-2 Stats
R16 Julien Benneteau (FRA) 55 W 6-4, 7-5, 7-5 Stats
Q Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 25 W 2-6, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
S Gael Monfils (FRA) 59 W 6-2, 5-7, 6-3, 7-5 Stats
F Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 L 1-6, 3-6, 0-6 Stats


Pete's French Open Draws in clay prime:

1992


Roland Garros, France; 25.05.1992; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Marc Rosset (SUI) 42 W 7-6(5), 4-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 Stats
R64 Laurent Prades (FRA) 204 W 7-6(6), 6-4, 7-6(3) Stats
R32 Rodolphe Gilbert (FRA) 79 W 6-3, 6-2, 6-3 Stats
R16 Carl-Uwe Steeb (GER) 32 W 6-4, 6-3, 6-2 Stats
Q Andre Agassi (USA) 12 L 6-7(6), 2-6, 1-6 Stats


1993

Roland Garros, France; 24.05.1993; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Andrei Cherkasov (RUS) 34 W 6-1, 6-2, 3-6, 6-1 Stats
R64 Marcos Ondruska (RSA) 27 W 7-5, 6-0, 6-3 Stats
R32 Jonas Svensson (SWE) 38 W 6-4, 6-4, 6-2 Stats
R16 MaliVai Washington (USA) 18 W 6-3, 7-6(6), 6-1 Stats
Q Sergi Bruguera (ESP) 11 L 3-6, 6-4, 1-6, 4-6 Stats


1994
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Albert Costa (ESP) 109 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-4 Stats
R64 Marcelo Rios (CHI) 283 W 7-6(5), 7-6(4), 6-4 Stats
R32 Paul Haarhuis (NED) 25 W 6-1, 6-4, 6-1 Stats
R16 Mikael Tillstrom (SWE) 226 W 6-4, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4 Stats
Q Jim Courier (USA) 7 L 4-6, 7-5, 4-6, 4-6 Stats



1995
Bad year at the French for Pete


1996

Roland Garros, France; 27.05.1996; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Magnus Gustafsson (SWE) 34 W 6-1, 7-5, 7-6(5) Stats
R64 Sergi Bruguera (ESP) 23 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-7(2), 2-6, 6-3 Stats
R32 Todd Martin (USA) 18 W 3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-2 Stats
R16 Scott Draper (AUS) 99 W 6-4, 7-5, 6-2 Stats
Q Jim Courier (USA) 8 W 6-7(4), 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 Stats
S Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) 7 L 6-7(4), 0-6, 2-6


Hell, I would like Pete's chances for a few finals with some of those draws Fed got at the Frnehc. He wouldn't be running into Courier, Agassi or Bruguera or Kafelnikov in their clay primes en route to the finals.

ALL of those guys are better than 90-95 percent of the guys Fed played en route in the finals during his "04-08" clay prime. Hanescu? Injured Nalbandian? Davydenko, Robredo all deep in the french Open tournament? Wayy easier than facing Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Courier, Dre en route to the finals. Sorry

 

[6-3 6-0]

FEDERER french Open draws in clay prime:


2005

R64 Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 76 W 6-3, 7-6(0), 6-2 Stats
R32 Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 26 W 7-6(9), 7-5, 6-2 Stats
R16 Carlos Moya (ESP) 15 W 6-1, 6-4, 6-3 Stats
Q Victor Hanescu (ROU) 90 W 6-2, 7-6(3), 6-3 Stats
S Rafael Nadal (ESP) 5 L 3-6, 6-4, 4-6, 3-6 Stats


2006
Roland Garros, France; 29.05.2006; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Diego Hartfield (ARG) 157 W 7-5, 7-6(2), 6-2 Stats
R64 Alejandro Falla (COL) 139 W 6-1, 6-4, 6-3 Stats
R32 Nicolas Massu (CHI) 35 W 6-1, 6-2, 6-7(4), 7-5 Stats
R16 Tomas Berdych (CZE) 20 W 6-3, 6-2, 6-3 Stats
Q Mario Ancic (CRO) 12 W 6-4, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
S David Nalbandian (ARG) 3 W 3-6, 6-4, 5-2 RET Stats
F Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 L 6-1, 1-6, 4-6, 6-7(4) Stats


2007
Roland Garros, France; 28.05.2007; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Michael Russell (USA) 68 W 6-4, 6-2, 6-4 Stats
R64 Thierry Ascione (FRA) 168 W 6-1, 6-2, 7-6(8) Stats
R32 Potito Starace (ITA) 57 W 6-2, 6-3, 6-0 Stats
R16 Mikhail Youzhny (RUS) 15 W 7-6(3), 6-4, 6-4 Stats
Q Tommy Robredo (ESP) 9 W 7-5, 1-6, 6-1, 6-2 Stats
S Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) 4 W 7-5, 7-6(5), 7-6(7) Stats
F Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 L 3-6, 6-4, 3-6, 4-6


2008


Roland Garros, France; 25.05.2008; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Sam Querrey (USA) 40 W 6-4, 6-4, 6-3 Stats
R64 Albert Montanes (ESP) 60 W 6-7(5), 6-1, 6-0, 6-4 Stats
R32 Mario Ancic (CRO) 46 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-2 Stats
R16 Julien Benneteau (FRA) 55 W 6-4, 7-5, 7-5 Stats
Q Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 25 W 2-6, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
S Gael Monfils (FRA) 59 W 6-2, 5-7, 6-3, 7-5 Stats
F Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 L 1-6, 3-6, 0-6 Stats


Pete's French Open Draws in clay prime:

1992


Roland Garros, France; 25.05.1992; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Marc Rosset (SUI) 42 W 7-6(5), 4-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 Stats
R64 Laurent Prades (FRA) 204 W 7-6(6), 6-4, 7-6(3) Stats
R32 Rodolphe Gilbert (FRA) 79 W 6-3, 6-2, 6-3 Stats
R16 Carl-Uwe Steeb (GER) 32 W 6-4, 6-3, 6-2 Stats
Q Andre Agassi (USA) 12 L 6-7(6), 2-6, 1-6 Stats


1993

Roland Garros, France; 24.05.1993; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Andrei Cherkasov (RUS) 34 W 6-1, 6-2, 3-6, 6-1 Stats
R64 Marcos Ondruska (RSA) 27 W 7-5, 6-0, 6-3 Stats
R32 Jonas Svensson (SWE) 38 W 6-4, 6-4, 6-2 Stats
R16 MaliVai Washington (USA) 18 W 6-3, 7-6(6), 6-1 Stats
Q Sergi Bruguera (ESP) 11 L 3-6, 6-4, 1-6, 4-6 Stats


1994
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Albert Costa (ESP) 109 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-4 Stats
R64 Marcelo Rios (CHI) 283 W 7-6(5), 7-6(4), 6-4 Stats
R32 Paul Haarhuis (NED) 25 W 6-1, 6-4, 6-1 Stats
R16 Mikael Tillstrom (SWE) 226 W 6-4, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4 Stats
Q Jim Courier (USA) 7 L 4-6, 7-5, 4-6, 4-6 Stats



1995
Bad year at the French for Pete


1996

Roland Garros, France; 27.05.1996; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Magnus Gustafsson (SWE) 34 W 6-1, 7-5, 7-6(5) Stats
R64 Sergi Bruguera (ESP) 23 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-7(2), 2-6, 6-3 Stats
R32 Todd Martin (USA) 18 W 3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-2 Stats
R16 Scott Draper (AUS) 99 W 6-4, 7-5, 6-2 Stats
Q Jim Courier (USA) 8 W 6-7(4), 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 Stats
S Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) 7 L 6-7(4), 0-6, 2-6


Hell, I would like Pete's chances for a few finals with some of those draws Fed got at the Frnehc. He wouldn't be running into Courier, Agassi or Bruguera or Kafelnikov in their clay primes en route to the finals.

ALL of those guys are better than 90-95 percent of the guys Fed played en route in the finals during his "04-08" clay prime

No sane person would admit PSampras is a better clay-courter LOL :lol: :lol:

 

[90's Clay]

No sane person would PSampras as a better clay-courter LOL :lol: :lol:

I didn't say he was. I just said if Sampras had been gifted some of the draws Fed had en route to the French Open finals, he would have had a few appearances there himself. Since there is NO ONE Fed faced through a few of those years that even sniff Courier, Bruguera, Kafelnikov and Agassi in their respective primes on clay.

Call me crazy, But I think I would rather face Robredo, Hanescu,and BUM Davydenko etc.. deep in a french Open draw then Courier, Dre, Bruguera or Yvgeny. ROFLMAO

 

[ARFED]

FEDERER french Open draws in clay prime:


2005

R64 Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 76 W 6-3, 7-6(0), 6-2 Stats
R32 Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 26 W 7-6(9), 7-5, 6-2 Stats
R16 Carlos Moya (ESP) 15 W 6-1, 6-4, 6-3 Stats
Q Victor Hanescu (ROU) 90 W 6-2, 7-6(3), 6-3 Stats
S Rafael Nadal (ESP) 5 L 3-6, 6-4, 4-6, 3-6 Stats


2006
Roland Garros, France; 29.05.2006; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Diego Hartfield (ARG) 157 W 7-5, 7-6(2), 6-2 Stats
R64 Alejandro Falla (COL) 139 W 6-1, 6-4, 6-3 Stats
R32 Nicolas Massu (CHI) 35 W 6-1, 6-2, 6-7(4), 7-5 Stats
R16 Tomas Berdych (CZE) 20 W 6-3, 6-2, 6-3 Stats
Q Mario Ancic (CRO) 12 W 6-4, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
S David Nalbandian (ARG) 3 W 3-6, 6-4, 5-2 RET Stats
F Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 L 6-1, 1-6, 4-6, 6-7(4) Stats


2007
Roland Garros, France; 28.05.2007; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Michael Russell (USA) 68 W 6-4, 6-2, 6-4 Stats
R64 Thierry Ascione (FRA) 168 W 6-1, 6-2, 7-6(8) Stats
R32 Potito Starace (ITA) 57 W 6-2, 6-3, 6-0 Stats
R16 Mikhail Youzhny (RUS) 15 W 7-6(3), 6-4, 6-4 Stats
Q Tommy Robredo (ESP) 9 W 7-5, 1-6, 6-1, 6-2 Stats
S Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) 4 W 7-5, 7-6(5), 7-6(7) Stats
F Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 L 3-6, 6-4, 3-6, 4-6


2008


Roland Garros, France; 25.05.2008; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Sam Querrey (USA) 40 W 6-4, 6-4, 6-3 Stats
R64 Albert Montanes (ESP) 60 W 6-7(5), 6-1, 6-0, 6-4 Stats
R32 Mario Ancic (CRO) 46 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-2 Stats
R16 Julien Benneteau (FRA) 55 W 6-4, 7-5, 7-5 Stats
Q Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 25 W 2-6, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
S Gael Monfils (FRA) 59 W 6-2, 5-7, 6-3, 7-5 Stats
F Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 L 1-6, 3-6, 0-6 Stats


Pete's French Open Draws in clay prime:

1992


Roland Garros, France; 25.05.1992; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Marc Rosset (SUI) 42 W 7-6(5), 4-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 Stats
R64 Laurent Prades (FRA) 204 W 7-6(6), 6-4, 7-6(3) Stats
R32 Rodolphe Gilbert (FRA) 79 W 6-3, 6-2, 6-3 Stats
R16 Carl-Uwe Steeb (GER) 32 W 6-4, 6-3, 6-2 Stats
Q Andre Agassi (USA) 12 L 6-7(6), 2-6, 1-6 Stats


1993

Roland Garros, France; 24.05.1993; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Andrei Cherkasov (RUS) 34 W 6-1, 6-2, 3-6, 6-1 Stats
R64 Marcos Ondruska (RSA) 27 W 7-5, 6-0, 6-3 Stats
R32 Jonas Svensson (SWE) 38 W 6-4, 6-4, 6-2 Stats
R16 MaliVai Washington (USA) 18 W 6-3, 7-6(6), 6-1 Stats
Q Sergi Bruguera (ESP) 11 L 3-6, 6-4, 1-6, 4-6 Stats


1994
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Albert Costa (ESP) 109 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-4 Stats
R64 Marcelo Rios (CHI) 283 W 7-6(5), 7-6(4), 6-4 Stats
R32 Paul Haarhuis (NED) 25 W 6-1, 6-4, 6-1 Stats
R16 Mikael Tillstrom (SWE) 226 W 6-4, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4 Stats
Q Jim Courier (USA) 7 L 4-6, 7-5, 4-6, 4-6 Stats



1995
Bad year at the French for Pete


1996

Roland Garros, France; 27.05.1996; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Magnus Gustafsson (SWE) 34 W 6-1, 7-5, 7-6(5) Stats
R64 Sergi Bruguera (ESP) 23 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-7(2), 2-6, 6-3 Stats
R32 Todd Martin (USA) 18 W 3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-2 Stats
R16 Scott Draper (AUS) 99 W 6-4, 7-5, 6-2 Stats
Q Jim Courier (USA) 8 W 6-7(4), 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 Stats
S Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) 7 L 6-7(4), 0-6, 2-6


Hell, I would like Pete's chances for a few finals with some of those draws Fed got at the Frnehc. He wouldn't be running into Courier, Agassi or Bruguera or Kafelnikov in their clay primes en route to the finals.

ALL of those guys are better than 90-95 percent of the guys Fed played en route in the finals during his "04-08" clay prime. Hanescu? Injured Nalbandian? Davydenko, Robredo all deep in the french Open tournament? Wayy easier than facing Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Courier, Dre en route to the finals. Sorry

Yeah i know, Pete at his absolute clay best (1996) , was a beast, he faced Gustaffson, Draper, and Todd "the second coming of Borg" Martin. On top of that impossible draw he had to endure against Bruguera who had won 2 clay matches prior to that RG and peak Courier who was winning everything on the red dirt by that time. After all that effort i understan why he was so damn hungry for bagels and asked Yevgeny "the clay legend" Kafelnikov, to give him one.

Hey, i`ll give you this, Pete for sure had some great victories in those first rounds at Paris, especially that one against a recently graduated from grammar school kid named Rios.

 

[90's Clay]

Yeah i know, Pete at his absolute clay best (1996) , was a beast, he faced Gustaffson, Draper, and Todd "the second coming of Borg" Martin. On top of that impossible draw he had to endure against Bruguera who had won 2 clay matches prior to that RG and peak Courier who was winning everything on the red dirt by that time. After all that effort i understan why he was so damn hungry for bagels and asked Yevgeny "the clay legend" Kafelnikov, to give him one.

Hey, i`ll give you this, Pete for sure had some great victories in those first rounds at Paris, especially that one against a recently graduated from grammar school kid named Rios.

1996 he beat Bruguera and Courier en route to the semis.. I would take those wins over Robredo or Hanescu, the gambling Russian Davydenko (who did NOTHING in slams his entire career) late in the tournament like Roger. ROFLMAO

 

[6-3 6-0]

I didn't say he was. I just said if Sampras had been gifted some of the draws Fed had en route to the French Open finals, he would have had a few appearances there himself. Since there is NO ONE Fed faced through a few of those years that even sniff Courier, Bruguera, Kafelnikov and Agassi in their respective primes on clay.

Call me crazy, But I think I would rather face Robredo, Hanescu,and BUM Davydenko etc.. deep in a french Open draw then Courier, Dre, Bruguera or Yvgeny. ROFLMAO

Yeah, just because RFederer made those finals, PSampras would have also made it, no? And your biased opinion holds no water at all. Your boy would've still lost to some '05-'06 "mug", so that's hardly a difference. Is it a co-incidence that the year PSampras made the SF, ended up losing early in the Wimbledon? :lol:
On the other hand, RFederer advanced to the finals of both the slams in the same year for 4 consecutive years.

 

[90's Clay]

Yeah, just because RFederer made those finals, PSampras would have also made it, no? And your biased opinion holds no water at all. Your boy would've still lost to some '05-'06 "mug", so that's hardly a difference. Is it a co-incidence that the year PSampras made the SF, ended up losing early in the Wimbledon? :lol:
On the other hand, RFederer advanced to the finals of both the slams in the same year for 4 consecutive years.

In 1996, Sampras faced an on fire in the zone Kraijeck under fast grass. While Fed got an embryo 12 year old Nadal in the wimbledon finals.. Ohhh what an accomplishment..

Yea I'm sure 96 Sampras would have struggled with the 12 year old Majorcan who was still learning how to play tennis off of clay at the time

 

[ARFED]

In 1996, Sampras faced an on fire in the zone Kraijeck under fast grass. While Fed got an embryo 12 year old Nadal in the wimbledon finals.. Ohhh what an accomplishment..

Yea I'm sure 96 Sampras would have struggled with the 12 year old Majorcan who was still learning how to play tennis off of clay at the time

Krajicek seemed to be only in the zone against Pete, didn`t he? Owned by Krajicek at your peak....

 

[90's Clay]

Krajicek seemed to be only in the zone against Pete, didn`t he? Owned by Krajicek at your peak....

Actually Krajcieck was in the zone ALL tournament.

Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Javier Sanchez (ESP) 61 W 6-4, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
R64 Derrick Rostagno (USA) 133 W 6-4, 6-3, 6-3 Stats
R32 Brett Steven (NZL) 59 W 7-6(5), 6-7(5), 6-4, 6-2 Stats
R16 Michael Stich (GER) 12 W 6-4, 7-6(5), 6-4 Stats
Q Pete Sampras (USA) 1 W 7-5, 7-6(3), 6-4 Stats
S Jason Stoltenberg (AUS) 46 W 7-5, 6-2, 6-1 Stats
W MaliVai Washington (USA) 20 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-3 Stats


And don't talk about "ownage" when it comes to Nadal-Fed please. We know how thats turned out for the Swiss. h2h with Pete-Kraijicek was only 6-4. Thats not ownage

 

[ARFED]

Actually Krajcieck was in the zone ALL tournament.

Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Javier Sanchez (ESP) 61 W 6-4, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
R64 Derrick Rostagno (USA) 133 W 6-4, 6-3, 6-3 Stats
R32 Brett Steven (NZL) 59 W 7-6(5), 6-7(5), 6-4, 6-2 Stats
R16 Michael Stich (GER) 12 W 6-4, 7-6(5), 6-4 Stats
Q Pete Sampras (USA) 1 W 7-5, 7-6(3), 6-4 Stats
S Jason Stoltenberg (AUS) 46 W 7-5, 6-2, 6-1 Stats
W MaliVai Washington (USA) 20 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-3 Stats


And don't talk about "ownage" when it comes to Nadal-Fed please. We know how thats turned out for the Swiss

Are you comparing Krajicek with Nadal??? I thought you knew better...

 

[90's Clay]

Are you comparing Krajicek with Nadal??? I thought you knew better...

6-4 h2h isn't ownage anyways.. Like I said. 20-10 is major ownage. Especially when the guy has beaten you at slams on ALL surfaces

 

[6-3 6-0]

In 1996, Sampras faced an on fire in the zone Kraijeck under fast grass. While Fed got an embryo 12 year old Nadal in the wimbledon finals.. Ohhh what an accomplishment..

Yea I'm sure 96 Sampras would have struggled with the 12 year old Majorcan who was still learning how to play tennis off of clay at the time

Thanks for good laugh, man! :lol:
Embryo? ROFLMFAO! I thought RNadal directly came out of his mother's womb to play in the finals, no?

While PSampras had to face "an on fire RKrajicek" who had then won 20 slams, didn't lose a single match that year, was breaking all sorts of records, etc :lol:

You're worse than those RNadal trollboys :twisted: