Federer v Borg on clay

[Beckerserve]

Obviously we know the greatest ever on clay.
Question is who is 2nd. Borg Kuerten and Federer the other true greats on clay although i think Federer would beat Kuerten more often than not so ive excluded Guga.
But for Nadal federer would have 6 FOs no question so Federer v Borg. Discuss.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Never saw Borg play, so cant compare, but I do know Fed does not get his rightful due thanks to the best clay courter ever in his clay prime.

 

[Beckerserve]

Never saw Borg play, so cant compare, but I do know Fed does not get his rightful due thanks to the best clay courter ever in his clay prime.

Well knowledgeable followers of the game acknowledge Federer as comfortably the 2nd best clay court player of the Nadal era. Not sure there can be any debate can there?

 

[Lleytonstation]

Well knowledgeable followers of the game acknowledge Federer as comfortably the 2nd best clay court player of the Nadal era. Not sure there can be any debate can there?

No doubt, I mean Wawa had a run there but just not sustained and was only a very short time. But distant third in Rafa era.

 

[MichaelNadal]

If if If doesn't exist

 

[Beckerserve]

No doubt, I mean Wawa had a run there but just not sustained and was only a very short time. But distant third in Rafa era.

Yes gotta put Stan the man 3rd but he is some way down for sure. 2015 FO was one of my fav ever matches actually. Remember buying two bottles of champagne was so happy for Stan. Really like the guy. He is a guys guy if you know what i mean

 

[Beckerserve]

If if If doesn't exist

Well in this case it does as someone has to be 2nd. As they never played due to being 30 years apart if if if is all we have baby

 

[Sport]

Max Decugis is, behind Rafael Nadal, the most dominant force the sport has ever witnessed on clay. As everyone knows, Mr. Decugis won 8 Roland-Garros titles (the second most only behind Rafael Nadal). Decugis could not defend his 1914 title and Roland-Garros was suspended from 1915 to 1919 due to the World War I. Tennis analysts speculate that Decugis could have added 3 to 5 extra Roland-Garros titles during those years to make it 11-13 Roland-Garros.

Reports from the newspapers of his time express a profound disbelief on the nature of Decugis' seemengly superhuman domination. He was well known for having an exquisite ball touch, a superbly powerful backhand, and a precise forehand (particularly remarkable for its inherenly revolutionary top spin).

But, as it is well known, the human species has the unfortunate practice of forgetting history. Recency bias surrounds any domain, including tennis discussions. Many people automatically disregard Decugis' impressive achievements with the argument that "Roland-Garros only allowed the participation of French players during Decugis' years". Such an argument is easily refuted: Decugis won the Olympic Gold in singles from 1906. The Olympics 1906 were played in outdoor clay, and players from all nations could participate. Thus, Decugis proved to the world in 1906 that he was the best clay player of his time.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Max Decugis is, behind Rafael Nadal, the most dominant force the sport has ever witnessed on clay. As everyone knows, Mr. Decugis won 8 Roland-Garros titles (the second most only behind Rafael Nadal). Decugis could not defend his 1914 title and Roland-Garros was suspended from 1915 to 1919 due to the World War I. Tennis analysts speculate that Decugis could have added 3 to 5 extra Roland-Garros titles during those years to make it 11-13 Roland-Garros.

Reports from the newspapers of his time express a profound disbelief on the nature of Decugis' seemengly superhuman domination. He was well known for having an exquisite ball touch, a superbly powerful backhand, and a precise forehand (particularly remarkable for its inherenly revolutionary top spin).

But, as it is well known, the human species has the unfortunate practice of forgetting history. Recency bias surrounds any domain, including tennis discussions. Many people automatically disregard Decugis' impressive achievements with the argument that "Roland-Garros only allowed the participation of French players during Decugis' years". Such an argument is easily refuted: Decugis won the Olympic Gold in singles from 1906. The Olympics 1906 were played in outdoor clay, and players from all nations could participate. Thus, Decugis proved to the world in 1906 that he was the best clay player of his time.

Ahh Max. Haven't heard that name since Nadal had 7 and people were saying he needed more lol. He was like "ok"

 

[adil1972]

fed (6) >>> borg (0) on AO
borg (6) >>> fed (1) on RG
fed (8) >>> borg (5) on Wimbledon
fed (5) >>> borg (0) on US Open

if nadal do not win this FO, then who do you want to win FO 2021

 

[chjtennis]

Obviously we know the greatest ever on clay.
Question is who is 2nd. Borg Kuerten and Federer the other true greats on clay although i think Federer would beat Kuerten more often than not so ive excluded Guga.
But for Nadal federer would have 6 FOs no question so Federer v Borg. Discuss.

Kuerten actually schooled Rogi at RG in 2004. Prime Kuerten would be one of few players who have chances at beating Nadal at RG.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

Borg. Straights.

 

[Sport]

Kuerten actually schooled Rogi at RG in 2004. Prime Kuerten would be one of few players who have chances at beating Nadal at RG.

Another one of your typical Nadal hater comments. Comparing Kuerten with Nadal is an insult to objectivity. Now you are comparing the level of a player with 13 RG with another player that only won 3 RG. Nadal has 10 more RG titles than Kuerten. They are players from completely different calibre.

Kuerten has no chance to defeat Nadal at RG, provided that the Spaniard is playing well and fully fit.

Of course, Kuerten could still defeat 2009 Nadal (knee injury) and 2015 Nadal (worst year in his career).

No version of Kuerten can defeat 2006-2008, 2010-2013, or 2017-onwards Nadal at RG.

 

[chjtennis]

Another one of your typical anti-Nadal comments. Now you are comparing the level of a player with 13 RG kit anote player that only won 3 RG. Kuerten has no chance to defeat Nadal at RG, provided that the Spaniard is playing well and fully fit.

Of course, Kuerten could still defeat 2009 Nadal (knee injury) and 2015 Nadal (worst year in his career).

No version of Kuerten can defeat 2006-2008, 2010-2013, or 2017-onwards Nadal at RG.

Peak Kuerten certainly is a threat to Nadal on clay. That doesn't mean he would beat Nadal 9 out 10 times. Kuerten in his prime could beat Nadal on a given day.

My typical anti-Nadal comments? Get outta here.

 

[Enceladus]

Borg was as strong a clay player in his time as Nadal, only his dominance was shorter than Nadal's. Comparing Borg to Federer on RG is like comparing Sampras to Edberg at Wimbledon. OP has a lack of understanding of tennis history.

 

[Start da Game]

Obviously we know the greatest ever on clay.
Question is who is 2nd. Borg Kuerten and Federer the other true greats on clay although i think Federer would beat Kuerten more often than not so ive excluded Guga.
But for Nadal federer would have 6 FOs no question so Federer v Borg. Discuss.

the answer is borg but having watched kuerten in his prime i can tell you that guga had what it takes to challenge peak nadal at roland garros.........we can't say that about fed or djoko.........

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

OP is claiming on another thread that Kuerten is miles away from Djokovic on clay, by yet he's asking who is the greatest on this surface between Borg and Federer?
Where is the logic here ? Where is the honesty?

 

[Druss]

I don’t think Federer is in that same discussion with Borg on clay, who is unquestionably the OE No2 on that surface. Then there is Lendl as No3. Dokovic is on par with Fed, both of whom would lose more often than not vs Guga.

 

[Nadal_Django]

OP is claiming on another thread that Kuerten is miles away from Djokovic on clay, by yet he's asking who is the greatest on this surface between Borg and Federer?
Where is the logic here ? Where is the honesty?

Actually the OP is right, Kuerten is miles away from Djokovic on clay, and Djokovic was Nadal's biggest FO obstacle, for the better part of the last 15 years. The Hardcourter Djokovic playing his usual HC game on clay, as Nadal's biggest rival for the biggest clay titles and tournaments, in the last decade at least. Lol And the same goes for Federer before that really...Tells you everything you need to know about the joke that was the Clay competition for the last 15-20 years.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Federer isn't even in the top 10 on clay.

 

[RoS]

Another one of your typical Nadal hater comments. Comparing Kuerten with Nadal is an insult to objectivity. Now you are comparing the level of a player with 13 RG with another player that only won 3 RG. Nadal has 10 more RG titles than Kuerten. They are players from completely different calibre.

Kuerten has no chance to defeat Nadal at RG, provided that the Spaniard is playing well and fully fit.

Of course, Kuerten could still defeat 2009 Nadal (knee injury) and 2015 Nadal (worst year in his career).

No version of Kuerten can defeat 2006-2008, 2010-2013, or 2017-onwards Nadal at RG.

Thiem is like a Austrian Baby Kuerten and he match up well with Nadal, so the real Kuerten would have a shot against Nadal. Kuerten has a excellent serve who give him plenty of free points.

But I think it will be the same result : I don't see Kuerten redlining against Nadal on Philippe Chatrier for 5 sets. His top class OHB can handle the Nadal topspin forehand yes, but for how long ? Kuerten struggled against Muster in 1997 and Nadal is a super enhanced version of Muster.

 

[Sport]

Peak Kuerten certainly is a threat to Nadal on clay. That doesn't mean he would beat Nadal 9 out 10 times. Kuerten in his prime could beat Nadal on a given day.

My typical anti-Nadal comments? Get outta here.

All your comments are anti-Nadal. Stop being a Nadal detractor.

And no, Kuerten cannot defeat a well-playing Nadal at RG. Kuerten is a nobody at RG compared to Nadal. Nadal has 10 more RG titles than Kuerten. They are on completely different leagues. It's like comparing Sampras on grass with Agassi. Agassi can't defeat a well-playing Sampras at Wimbledon.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Borg, Kuerten, Soderling, etc. peaked higher than Federer on clay.

 

[RoS]

No, you get outta here. All your comments are anti-Nadal. Stop being a hater.

And no, Kuerten cannot defeat a well-playing Nadal at RG. Kuerten is a nobody at RG compared to Nadal. Nadal has 10 more RG titles than Kuerten. They are on completely different leagues. It's like comparing Sampras on grass with Agassi. Agassi can't defeat a well-playing Sampras at Wimbledon.

It depends. Kuerten would have a chance against FO 2006 Nadal. Federer nearly went to a fifth set and had two match points against Nadal in the slow clay of Rome (still a Bo5 final)

 

[Sport]

Thiem is like a Austrian Baby Kuerten and he match up well with Nadal, so the real Kuerten would have a shot against Nadal. Kuerten has a excellent serve who give him plenty of free points.

But I think it will be the same result : I don't see Kuerten redlining against Nadal on Philippe Chatrier for 5 sets. His top class OHB can handle the Nadal topspin forehand yes, but for how long ? Kuerten struggled against Muster in 1997 and Nadal is a super enhanced version of Muster.

Thiem has never defeated Nadal at RG, in fact he has only won 1 out of 12 sets against Nadal at RG. So no, Thiem doesn't "match up well" against Rafa at RG.

Kuerten has literally no chance to defeat a well-playing Nadal at RG. Nadal has 10 more RG titles than Kuerten. It's like comparing Agassi with Sampras at Wombledon. Agassi has no chance to defeat a well-playing Sampras at Wimbledon.

 

[Sport]

It depends. Kuerten would have a chance against FO 2006 Nadal. Federer nearly went to a fifth set and had two match points against Nadal in the slow clay of Rome (still a Bo5 final)

Nope, he wouldn't. 2006 Nadal would easily demolish him.

 

[Hitman]

Thiem has never defeated Nadal at RG, in fact he has only won 1 out of 13 sets against Nadal at RG. So no, Thiem doesn't "match up well" against Rafa at RG.

Kuerten has literally no chance to defeat a well-playing Nadal at RG. Nadal has 10 more RG titles than Kuerten. It's like comparing Agassi with Sampras at Wombledon. Agassi has no chance to defeat a well-playing Sampras at Wimbledon.

Untestable - So please stop with this.

 

[Sport]

Untestable - So please stop with this.

Ask the same to them.

 

[Hitman]

Ask the same to them.

You should be doing that. Just say that and that's that. There is no more argument. Once you start playing their game, well, then they got you, haven't they?

 

[RoS]

Nope, he wouldn't. 2006 Nadal would easily demolish him.

2007 Nadal and espiecially 2008 Nadal (no one beats this version of Nadal) yes. 2010-2013 Nadal too, but 2006 Nadal was still a little defensive. Peak Kuerten would have a shot I think. If Federer nearly went to a fifth set (and even breadsticked Nadal, the first set was 6-1), surely Peak Kuerten can push 2006 Nadal even more (and even beat him).

 

[Sport]

Nadal has won 10 more RG titles than Kuerten.
Djokovic has won 8 more AO titles than Thomas Johansson.

To assert that "Kuerten has a chance to defeat a well-playing Nadal at RG" is even more rididulous than to assert that "Johansson has a chance to defeat a well-playing Djokovic at the AO". There is more difference in RG titles between Nadal and Kuerten than between Djokovic and Johansson in AO titles.

 

[Martin J]

Nope, he wouldn't. 2006 Nadal would easily demolish him.

Nadal lost sets to Hewitt, Mathieu and Federer, but would easily demolish Kuerten, clearly superior clay court player than the other three? You must be joking or never watched Guga before, the guy had an insane peak level.

 

[Sport]

Nadal lost sets to Hewitt, Mathieu and Federer, but would easily demolish Kuerten, clearly superior clay court player than the other three? You must be joking or never watched Guga before, the guy had an insane peak level.

"Demolish" includes winning in 4 in my way of speaking. You could use a different word, the point is Kuerten had no chance.

You must be joking or never watched Nadal before, Nadal on clay has THE highest peak level in the history of the sport. Kuerten's peak on clay is not even close to Nadal's one. As 2006 is traditionally classified as one of Nadal's well-playing years, Kuerten had no chance to beat Nadal. Sure, he could win a set like Federer did and make a fun match. That is all.

 

[SonnyT]

Obviously we know the greatest ever on clay.
Question is who is 2nd. Borg Kuerten and Federer the other true greats on clay although i think Federer would beat Kuerten more often than not so ive excluded Guga.
But for Nadal federer would have 6 FOs no question so Federer v Borg. Discuss.

Prime Djokovic would whip prime Federer on clay. The serve and return are not so important, but he's so much better at rallies, and grinding out points.

I know the RG match in '11, but that was just an accident!

 

[Sport]

Prime Djokovic would whip prime Federer on clay. The serve and return are not so important, but he's so much better at rallies, and grinding out points.

I'm not even a Federer fan, but come on...

 

[SonnyT]

I'm not even a Federer fan, but come on...

I gave you reasons. You must think 'come on' is a very persuasive reason!

Djokovic dominates Federer on the other 2 surfaces, so why should clay be any different!

 

[RoS]

"Demolish" includes winning in 4 in my way of speaking. You could use a different word, the point is Kuerten had no chance.

You must be joking or never watched Nadal before, Nadal on clay has THE highest peak level in the history of the sport. Kuerten's peak on clay is not even close to Nadal's one. As 2006 is traditionally classified as one of Nadal's well-playing years, Kuerten had no chance to beat Nadal. Sure, he could win a set like Federer did and make a fun match. That is all.

If Federer with a weaker backhand can seriously push 2006 Nadal, Kuerten with one of the best OHB of all times can beat 2006 Nadal or at LEAST push him to a fifth ?
2006 Nadal was one of the weakest versions of Nadal at FO with 2011. 2007 Nadal and 2008 Nadal are untouchable.
I also fancy Kuerten against Older Nadal too (who is slower and has less endurance).

 

[Martin J]

"Demolish" includes winning in 4 in my way of speaking. You could use a different word, the point is Kuerten had no chance.

You must be joking or never watched Nadal before, Nadal on clay has THE highest peak level in the history of the sport. Kuerten's peak on clay is not even close to Nadal's one. As 2006 is traditionally classified as one of Nadal's well-playing years, Kuerten had no chance to beat Nadal. Sure, he could win a set like Federer did and make a fun match. That is all.

That's not the point and nobody denied that peak Nadal would beat Kuerten at RG, but 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2014 etc Nadal was vulnerable on the surface. Just because his toughest challengers (Federer and Djokovic) couldn't beat him doesn't mean that nobody could play more efficiently against him. Kuerten possessed a power off both wings and one of the biggest serves on clay in history and was more comfortable on the surface than anybody Nadal has ever faced, so saying that he had no chance to beat Nadal, while he was pushed by the other players who are nowhere near Guga's level, doesn't make much sense, imo.

And I've watched both guys playing enough, don't you worry.

 

[Forehanderer]

Max Decugis is, behind Rafael Nadal, the most dominant force the sport has ever witnessed on clay. As everyone knows, Mr. Decugis won 8 Roland-Garros titles (the second most only behind Rafael Nadal). Decugis could not defend his 1914 title and Roland-Garros was suspended from 1915 to 1919 due to the World War I. Tennis analysts speculate that Decugis could have added 3 to 5 extra Roland-Garros titles during those years to make it 11-13 Roland-Garros.

Reports from the newspapers of his time express a profound disbelief on the nature of Decugis' seemengly superhuman domination. He was well known for having an exquisite ball touch, a superbly powerful backhand, and a precise forehand (particularly remarkable for its inherenly revolutionary top spin).

But, as it is well known, the human species has the unfortunate practice of forgetting history. Recency bias surrounds any domain, including tennis discussions. Many people automatically disregard Decugis' impressive achievements with the argument that "Roland-Garros only allowed the participation of French players during Decugis' years". Such an argument is easily refuted: Decugis won the Olympic Gold in singles from 1906. The Olympics 1906 were played in outdoor clay, and players from all nations could participate. Thus, Decugis proved to the world in 1906 that he was the best clay player of his time.

We have a recency bias hence look at Federer, Djoko, Kuerten as options next to Nadal. Sometime in the next century, I hope someone talks about the big 3 and other greats in similar terms as you have done with Decugis and not forget the history.
Having said that Borg is a better player than Federer, Djokovic on clay. kuerten also but he may run him close. One should read Borg's book on his game. I have my suspicion that Toni read the book when Rafa was growing up and taught him what Borg had mentioned. Borg played deep behind the baseline, used top spin shots to keep the ball in place and exhibited power hitting and his ground game was par with the best. He would pass serve and volleyers even in Wimbledon.
His style was then considered unorthodox as he didn't go by the tennis playing manuals. Basically he invented his own game. His game is defense oriented and play long rallies and wait for the moment to strike. He even used wooden racquets of the 70s with small heads. With the string technology of the 70s, he generated immense top spin with his grip. Also he retired early. So no one really knows how many GS he would have won. Clay was his strong suite as his body can take the rigors of the clay game and had the patience.
If one has to put up the best clay players of the century, Nadal, Decugis and Borg will be the top 3. Federer, Guga and Djoko will be honorable mentions if at all they are mentioned. Wilander won 3 FO and is not even mentioned. So someone looking at all time clay players in the future may not give Fedovic the credit as clay players. Federer has outperformed his predecessors in Sampras, Becker and Edberg but to call him on par with Borg is a bridge too far I think. I don't think even Kuerten, Wilander can be compared to Borg. Borg can be called the father of the modern clay game

 

[Sport]

If Federer with a weaker backhand can seriously push 2006 Nadal, Kuerten with one of the best OHB of all times can beat 2006 Nadal or at LEAST push him to a fifth ?
2006 Nadal was one of the weakest versions of Nadal at FO with 2011. 2007 Nadal and 2008 Nadal are untouchable.
I also fancy Kuerten against Older Nadal too (who is slower and has less endurance).

2006 Nadal was a beast. 2005 Nadal is another issue, and I do give Kuerten a chance there. 2005 Nadal was extra-young and lacked experience winning RG. Kuerten could have defeated that unexperienced version of Nadal.

By your logic, "if Hewitt pushed Nadal to 4 do you really think Federer wouldn't push Nadal to 5 at RG?". No, the fact that Nadal lost 1 set to a relatively inferior clay player does not mean that he will lose 2 sets to another slightly better on the surface.

 

[MeatTornado]

Nadal has won 10 more RG titles than Kuerten.
Djokovic has won 8 more AO titles than Thomas Johansson.

To assert that "Kuerten has a chance to defeat a well-playing Nadal at RG" is even more rididulous than to assert that "Johansson has a chance to defeat a well-playing Djokovic at the AO". There is more difference in RG titles between Nadal and Kuerten than between Djokovic and Johansson in AO titles.

So Nadal never had any shot at Novak in Australia since Novak has 9x as many titles there? Is that how this works?

 

[Sport]

That's not the point and nobody denied that peak Nadal would beat Kuerten at RG, but 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2014 etc Nadal was vulnerable on the surface. Just because his toughest challengers (Federer and Djokovic) couldn't beat him doesn't mean that nobody could play more efficiently against him. Kuerten possessed a power off both wings and one of the biggest serves on clay in history and was more comfortable on the surface than anybody Nadal has ever faced, so saying that he had no chance to beat Nadal, while he was pushed by the other players who are nowhere near Guga's level, doesn't make much sense, imo.

And I've watched both guys playing enough, don't you worry.

2006 Nadal was a beast at RG, and not vulnerable. 2011 Nadal wasn't vulnerable either, he defeated peak Federer in the final. He only needed 5 sets to defeat Isner because they were using lighter balls that edition and so the path of play was exceptionally fast. Kuerten did not possess Isner's monster serve to make RG look like a "grass court."

Kuerten could indeed defeat 2005 (lack of experience) and 2009 (slight knee injury) Nadal.

 

[Sport]

So Nadal never had any shot at Novak in Australia since Novak has 9x as many titles there? Is that how this works?

Novak has 8 more AO titles than Nadal. Nadal has 10 more RG titles than Kuerten. There is more difference between Nadal and Kuerten at RG than between Novak and Nadal at the AO.

 

[RoS]

2006 Nadal was a beast. 2005 Nadal is another issue, and I do give Kuerten a chance there. 2005 Nadal was extra-young and lacked experience winning RG. Kuerten could have defeated that unexperienced version of Nadal.

By your logic, "if Hewitt pushed Nadal to 4 do you really think Federer wouldn't push Nadal to 5 at RG?". No, the fact that Nadal lost 1 set to a relatively inferior clay player does not mean that he will lose 2 sets to another slightly better on the surface.

It's true.

It's PHM who pushed Nadal the most at FO 2006, even more than Federer. It remains the longest match of Nadal in the French otherwise ( FO SF 2013 is not far way)

For 2005, I agree. If Puerta had two sets points against Nadal (he wasted them with a bad net game) to go to a fifth , Kuerten would surely have taken them.

 

[Sport]

It's true.

It's PHM who pushed Nadal the most at FO 2006, even more than Federer. It remains the longest match of Nadal in the French otherwise ( FO SF 2013 is not far way)

For 2005, I agree. If Puerta had two sets against Nadal (he wasted them with a bad net game) to go to a fifth , Kuerten would surely have taken them.

Puerta won one set against Nadal, not two. And Puerta was doping. We are discussing an scenario of Nadal facing a non-doping opponent such as Kuerten.

There is no way it was "sure", as that Nadal defeated in 4 peak #1 Federer. But Kuerten did have a chance.

 

[MeatTornado]

Novak has 8 more AO titles than Nadal. Nadal has 10 more RG titles than Kuerten. There is more difference between Nadal and Kuerten at RG than between Novak and Nadal at the AO.

But certainly once you reach a certain threshold there's diminishing returns. What's the difference between someone having 8 more titles or 10 more titles? Basically nothing.

If 8 more means you have no chance, what's 10 more? Super no chance?

 

[RoS]

Puerta won one set against Nadal, not two.

There is no way it was "sure". But Kuerten did have a chance.

Two sets points for a fifth set. Forgive me.

 

[Sport]

What's the difference between someone having 8 more titles or 10 more titles? Basically nothing.

2 Grand Slam titles. That's hardly "nothing". Could be 3 Grand Slam titles in one month.

 

[fedfanforlifebebe]

Max Decugis is, behind Rafael Nadal, the most dominant force the sport has ever witnessed on clay. As everyone knows, Mr. Decugis won 8 Roland-Garros titles (the second most only behind Rafael Nadal). Decugis could not defend his 1914 title and Roland-Garros was suspended from 1915 to 1919 due to the World War I. Tennis analysts speculate that Decugis could have added 3 to 5 extra Roland-Garros titles during those years to make it 11-13 Roland-Garros.

Reports from the newspapers of his time express a profound disbelief on the nature of Decugis' seemengly superhuman domination. He was well known for having an exquisite ball touch, a superbly powerful backhand, and a precise forehand (particularly remarkable for its inherenly revolutionary top spin).

But, as it is well known, the human species has the unfortunate practice of forgetting history. Recency bias surrounds any domain, including tennis discussions. Many people automatically disregard Decugis' impressive achievements with the argument that "Roland-Garros only allowed the participation of French players during Decugis' years". Such an argument is easily refuted: Decugis won the Olympic Gold in singles from 1906. The Olympics 1906 were played in outdoor clay, and players from all nations could participate. Thus, Decugis proved to the world in 1906 that he was the best clay player of his time.

what about coria, the clay court season is not the same, huge mental loss against rival gaudio haunted him forever

 

[Forehanderer]

Prime Djokovic would whip prime Federer on clay. The serve and return are not so important, but he's so much better at rallies, and grinding out points.

I know the RG match in '11, but that was just an accident!

Lol a prime Djokovic in red hot form lost to an older Federer in RG 11. If you call that an accident, then Wim 19 is also an accident. Agree? Prime Federer around 05-06 meeting prime Djokovic 2011 version won't be a whipping. If at all its a whipping, it would be the other way around - Fed whipping Djoko. Just because Fed is good at serve doesn't mean he is a slouch in rallies and point construction. You should watch Fedal matches in RG and Rome in 06. Federer played well throughout the match in Rome but still lost in 5 sets. That loss is probably the most crushing loss for him than the RG that year.