How can Kuerten, Wilander, and Lendl be ranked above Federer at French?

[Phoenix1983]

The point is that Kuerten overcame his rivals and won 3 French Open titles in all, while Federer was bested by his biggest rival 5 times at the event and won 1 French Open. Let's deal with what actually happened, objective reality.

- Nadal has played 60 matches at the French Open, has won 59 of those matches, with 57 of them coming in fewer than 5 sets.
- Thus in 95% of the matches that Nadal has ever played at the French Open, he has won without even being pushed to 5 sets.

Talking about who's a tougher rival is a subjective thing, an opinion, and therefore has a personal bias when people take the argument in that direction.
I don't care who you are, but if you say "person 1 is a stronger rival than person 2", you are putting a personal opinion forward, which has bias.

Personal opinions, when based on objective data like the statistics I posted about Nadal above, are not biased but based on common sense of interpreting numbers. The fact is that Nadal is the most dominant FO champion there has ever been, against Federer and all other opponents, and it is not biased to state that he is a stronger rival than Kuerten would have been.

It's the same as me saying that there's a higher probability that Spain will produce a male grand slam singles champion before Zambia does. I suppose you would not say that I am biased towards the Spanish for stating that?

 

[President]

He said 'IMO'. I think there is actually a very good argument for Federer being as good a pure claycourter as Kuerten was despite having less overall achievements on the surface. The reasons are very obvious and built on context. Conversely, there are clear and good arguments to suggest that Kuerten is the superior clay court player.

This thread sort of passed me by actually but I can tell you right now that I have the unpopular opinion that they are probably quite equal. If you have to put a gun to my head then on gut instinct I'll nudge Kuerten ahead by the narrowest of margins.

I agree completely with your view that they are probably around equal in pure ability on clay. However, I think that given the same field, Federer would achieve more than Kuerten due to his much greater longevity. Heck, even now at nearly 33 Federer is playing some great ball on the red stuff.

 

[Mustard]

If Nadal is the best ever on clay and almost unbeatable, then why does losing 5 times to him automatically place Federer on a lower clay level than Kuerten?

Because Federer has only won 1 French Open and has been beaten by his biggest rival so many times at the event. Kuerten had strong rivals himself, and overcame them. Okay, they might not have been at Nadal's level, but making a legendary name for yourself at a tournament means winning and beating the rivals in front of you. Much of Nadal's legacy at the French Open has been achieved at Federer's expense, by beating his biggest rival so often. And contrary to the revisionism that goes on today, the results of these matches weren't foregone conclusions where Federer was seen to have zero chance against the clay GOAT. In 2005, Federer was actually the favourite pre-match, and in 2006, 2007 and 2008 was seen as a serious challenger, if the underdog. Even in 2011, Federer's win over Djokovic lifted hopes that he could beat Nadal also. After the matches finished, though, some people acted like Federer never had a hope, and the fact that he got the final was almost as good as if he had won the event (had Nadal not been there).

It just seems flat out illogical to me that you only look at the raw numbers, and don't try to look deeper at the causes and reasons for them. I know you hate hypotheticals, but I honestly believe that if Federer was playing the same clay field Kuerten did(swap them out) from 1997-2002 and he was in his clay prime, he would have at least the same number of RG titles. Look at his domination of all the claycourters of that period. That is why I place them on the same level.

It would be more true to say that hypotheticals are just that, hypotheticals, and cannot be a real life thing. If we go down the hypothetical path, then we must remember that it's all opinion, not based on any concrete reality.

You can say that Federer was unfortunate to have Nadal playing in his era, but on the other hand, shouldn't the legends find a way to beat their biggest rivals at these events and thus make themselves a bigger legend? Kuerten could have lost to Kafelnikov, Ferrero, Norman and Corretja, or even Michael Russell. How would Kuerten be remembered if he had lost these matches?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I agree completely with your view that they are probably around equal in pure ability on clay. However, I think that given the same field, Federer would achieve more than Kuerten due to his much greater longevity. Heck, even now at nearly 33 Federer is playing some great ball on the red stuff.

I guess in this instance, I am giving Kuerten a pass because of his injury problems... he may have gone on to achieve much more on clay. I realise this is hypothetical and in many cases it's up to the player to take care of his body. Perhaps his problems were kind of his fate. Nonetheless, you are probably right.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Federer is not a rival for Nadal on clay. That's liking saying Roddick was a rival for Fed on hard court. LOL Nadal didn't have to deal with any great clay courters. (Imagine if clay were Djoker's or Murray's best surface!) Def. a weak clay era. But even if Nadal did have opposition he would probably still have 5-7 FOs.

Good post. And if Nadal were to win the FO again this year it would only highlight once more how weak the clay field is as Nadal hasn't even been playing that well recently. The ATP would be cringing if that materializes.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

The hope for Federer in many of those RG finals though was bravado and bias kicking in for who was by far the most popular player on the tour. People wanted Federer to finally get that one missing Slam title as much as they want to see Floyd Mayweather lose this Saturday. Ultimately though, I do probably prefer Kuerten's chances against Nadal in a RG final over Federer's. I think he'd be less consistent in making those finals though than Federer even in the Fedal era which, on clay, probably doesn't stack up to Kuerten's.

 

[Smasher08]

If Nadal is the best ever on clay and almost unbeatable, then why does losing 5 times to him automatically place Federer on a lower clay level than Kuerten? It just seems flat out illogical to me that you only look at the raw numbers, and don't try to look deeper at the causes and reasons for them.

Because the Fed-hate is pretty much seething in that one! :lol:

 

[Mustard]

The hope for Federer in many of those RG finals though was bravado and bias kicking in for who was by far the most popular player on the tour. People wanted Federer to finally get that one missing Slam title as much as they want to see Floyd Mayweather lose this Saturday.

In 2008 perhaps, but not before. In 2005, Federer was even the favourite. Some prominent people were picking Federer to beat Nadal in the 2008 final.

 

[President]

Because Federer has only won 1 French Open and has been beaten by his biggest rival so many times at the event. Kuerten had strong rivals himself, and overcame them. Okay, they might not have been at Nadal's level, but making a legendary name for yourself at a tournament means winning and beating the rivals in front of you. Much of Nadal's legacy at the French Open has been achieved at Federer's expense, by beating his biggest rival so often. And contrary to the revisionism that goes on today, the results of these matches weren't foregone conclusions where Federer was seen to have zero chance against the clay GOAT. In 2005, Federer was actually the favourite pre-match, and in 2006, 2007 and 2008 was seen as a serious challenger, if the underdog. Even in 2011, Federer's win over Djokovic lifted hopes that he could beat Nadal also. After the matches finished, though, some people acted like Federer never had a hope, and the fact that he got the final was almost as good as if he had won the event (had Nadal not been there).



It would be more true to say that hypotheticals are just that, hypotheticals, and cannot be a real life thing. If we go down the hypothetical path, then we must remember that it's all opinion, not based on any concrete reality.

You can say that Federer was unfortunate to have Nadal playing in his era, but on the other hand, shouldn't the legends find a way to beat their biggest rivals at these events and thus make themselves a bigger legend? Kuerten could have lost to Kafelnikov, Ferrero, Norman and Corretja, or even Michael Russell. How would Kuerten be remembered if he had lost these matches?

So tell me this: Do you honestly think that a prime Federer would be unable to overcome Kafelnikov, aging Bruguera, Ferrero, Norman, MICHAEL RUSSEL (LOL), and the others of that era at the French Open? I realize its a hypothetical, but please give me your honest opinion. Your answer will tell me a lot. Basically, I'm saying that the quality of your "biggest rivals" matters hugely. It's unfair to just say that because Kuerten overcame his biggest rivals, he is much better on clay than Federer who was unable to overcome his. Federer's rival is/was the best ever on the surface.

 

[Start da Game]

You cannot just add "ness" to the end of any word you want. Are you the same poster as helloworld?

i know, i just couldn't find the right word as my vocabulary isn't that great.....

 

[Djokovic2011]

So tell me this: Do you honestly think that a prime Federer would be unable to overcome Kafelnikov, aging Bruguera, Ferrero, Norman, MICHAEL RUSSEL (LOL), and the others of that era at the French Open? I realize its a hypothetical, but please give me your honest opinion. Your answer will tell me a lot. Basically, I'm saying that the quality of your "biggest rivals" matters hugely. It's unfair to just say that because Kuerten overcame his biggest rivals, he is much better on clay than Federer who was able to overcome his. Federer's rival is/was the best ever on the surface.

He'll simply trot out the usual mumbo jumbo-anything to put Fed as low down as possible.

 

[Mustard]

So tell me this: Do you honestly think that a prime Federer would be unable to overcome Kafelnikov, aging Bruguera, Ferrero, Norman, MICHAEL RUSSEL (LOL), and the others of that era at the French Open? I realize its a hypothetical, but please give me your honest opinion. Your answer will tell me a lot.

You are asking me to give an answer to a hypothetical, about which we can know nothing. If I were to say yes, that Federer would win, that would be used as some sort of proof to further Federer's case for being better than Kuerten, even though it's hypothetical and didn't happen. There is a reason as to why matches are actually played.

 

[Djokovic2011]

You are asking me to give an answer to a hypothetical, about which we can know nothing. If I were to say yes, that Federer would win, that would be used as some sort of proof to further Federer's case for being better than Kuerten, even though it's hypothetical and didn't happen. There is a reason as to why matches are actually played.

Hahaha I told you so everyone! :lol:

 

[Mustard]

He'll simply trot out the usual mumbo jumbo-anything to put Fed as low down as possible.

I'm trying to bring some sanity back to these proceedings. Federer is not at Kuerten's level as a French Open legend, IMO.

 

[President]

You are asking me to give an answer to a hypothetical, about which we can know nothing. If I were to say yes, that Federer would win, that would be used as some sort of proof to further Federer's case for being better than Kuerten, even though it's hypothetical and didn't happen. There is a reason as to why matches are actually played.

But don't you understand that Federer not having the luxury of playing in that field (that lacked the best claycourter ever) put him at an overwhelming disadvantage in terms of racking up clay court accomplishments compared to Kuerten? Or are you just saying that context is irrelevant when determining a player's place in history? Yes, the matches were played and Kuerten had the luxury of not having to beat an unstoppable and immovable force at the French Open.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I'm trying to bring some sanity back to these proceedings. Federer is not at Kuerten's level as a French Open legend, IMO.

Where would you rank Federer on the list of all time great clay courters?

 

[Mustard]

Where would you rank Federer on the list of all time great clay courters?

I don't know. I haven't given it that much thought.

 

[jg153040]

Because Federer has only won 1 French Open and has been beaten by his biggest rival so many times at the event. Kuerten had strong rivals himself, and overcame them. Okay, they might not have been at Nadal's level, but making a legendary name for yourself at a tournament means winning and beating the rivals in front of you. Much of Nadal's legacy at the French Open has been achieved at Federer's expense, by beating his biggest rival so often. And contrary to the revisionism that goes on today, the results of these matches weren't foregone conclusions where Federer was seen to have zero chance against the clay GOAT. In 2005, Federer was actually the favourite pre-match, and in 2006, 2007 and 2008 was seen as a serious challenger, if the underdog. Even in 2011, Federer's win over Djokovic lifted hopes that he could beat Nadal also. After the matches finished, though, some people acted like Federer never had a hope, and the fact that he got the final was almost as good as if he had won the event (had Nadal not been there).



It would be more true to say that hypotheticals are just that, hypotheticals, and cannot be a real life thing. If we go down the hypothetical path, then we must remember that it's all opinion, not based on any concrete reality.

You can say that Federer was unfortunate to have Nadal playing in his era, but on the other hand, shouldn't the legends find a way to beat their biggest rivals at these events and thus make themselves a bigger legend? Kuerten could have lost to Kafelnikov, Ferrero, Norman and Corretja, or even Michael Russell. How would Kuerten be remembered if he had lost these matches?

But some things aren't hypothetical. Federer still has more consistency than Kuerten. Federer has longevity. So, even without Nadal, Kuerten wasn't as consistent and doesn't have longevity.

Another fact is that Federer bageled peak Nadal and Kuerten on clay. And is 4-0 vs Ferrero on clay, who was Kuerten's main rival. So, this suggest Fed has very high level of peak play and he has consistency and longevity.
PLUS, Federer is undefeated vs Almagro and Ferrer on clay, who are top clay courters today. Federer beat peak clay version of Nole at RG 11.

Even WITHOUT hypotheticals, the evidence for Fed are overwhelming.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I don't know. I haven't given it that much thought.

That surprises me given how much you know about the recent history of the sport. Or perhaps you just don't care enough about Federer to do your research?

 

[jg153040]

You are asking me to give an answer to a hypothetical, about which we can know nothing. If I were to say yes, that Federer would win, that would be used as some sort of proof to further Federer's case for being better than Kuerten, even though it's hypothetical and didn't happen. There is a reason as to why matches are actually played.

Yeah, using logic, facts and common sense can prove that Fed might be greater than you thought. But we can't have that .

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

The evidence for Federer is not overwhelming because Kuerten did go out and actually win 3 Roland Garros titles. But I totally see the points and arguments for Federer as being extremely legit and not in the slightest bit laughable.

I don't think that if we swap out Federer for Kuerten, that Kuerten reaches as many RG finals as Federer, but does that mean he would win less clay court titles or RG titles?

Does it?

 

[jg153040]

The evidence for Federer is not overwhelming because Kuerten did go out and actually win 3 Roland Garros titles. But I totally see the points and arguments for Federer as being extremely legit and not in the slightest bit laughable.

I don't think that if we swap out Federer for Kuerten, that Kuerten reaches as many RG finals as Federer, but does that mean he would win less clay court titles or RG titles?

Does it?

No, but I'm arguing that in this hypothetical situation Fed at least wins as many as Kuerten, to put them on the same tier. I put them as equals, I don't argue Federer is greater.

Let's say we swap their competition. It's not crazy to suggest Federer wins 2 RG tiles and Kuerten wins 2 RG titles.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

No, but I'm arguing that in this hypothetical situation Fed at least wins as many as Kuerten, to put them on the same tier. I put them as equals, I don't argue Federer is greater.

Let's say we swap their competition. It's not crazy to suggest Federer wins 2 RG tiles and Kuerten wins 2 RG titles.

It's also not crazy to suggest that Federer in Kuerten's time would have won 2 RG (worse than Kuerten) and that Kuerten in Federer's would win 2 despite reaching less finals (better than Federer).

 

[Start da Game]

But don't you understand that Federer not having the luxury of playing in that field (that lacked the best claycourter ever) put him at an overwhelming disadvantage in terms of racking up clay court accomplishments compared to Kuerten? Or are you just saying that context is irrelevant when determining a player's place in history? Yes, the matches were played and Kuerten had the luxury of not having to beat an unstoppable and immovable force at the French Open.

federer had SEVEN years on pro tour 1998 - 2004 before nadal hit his prime on clay......what did he achieve on clay during that period? he lost to a number of proper clay courters during that period......corretja, kuerten, horna, mantilla etc......post 2005 he beat a bunch of average hardcourters and faded out ferrero and moya to make roland garros finals......he couldn't even give a run for the money to nadal at least in one final out of all four they played......

so please stop sounding like winning would have been automatic for federer in a nadal-less field......

nadal's clay greatness transcends eras......that's why there is a gap of light years between him and the second great clay courter of this era......

 

[Start da Game]

No, but I'm arguing that in this hypothetical situation Fed at least wins as many as Kuerten, to put them on the same tier. I put them as equals, I don't argue Federer is greater.

Let's say we swap their competition. It's not crazy to suggest Federer wins 2 RG tiles and Kuerten wins 2 RG titles.

making finals would have been a lot harder for federer in the 90s......that is the point......top players usually had to go through a number of proper clay courters starting from round 3 all the way to the final......

yes final is clearly toughest against nadal but just the final alone does not make for a grandslam tournament.......

bottomline is you simply cannot make conclusions based on number of final appearances in this era......making roland garros finals is a lot easier today than it was in the past......

 

[NatF]

Those arguing that Federer should be at the same level of Kuerten are using pseudo Nadal fan arguments. Where by "peak play" and supposed "tougher competition" bridge the gap between two players where player A (Kuerten) has substantially better achievements.

 

[President]

Those arguing that Federer should be at the same level of Kuerten are using pseudo Nadal fan arguments. Where by "peak play" and supposed "tougher competition" bridge the gap between two players where player A (Kuerten) has substantially better achievements.

I don't think anyone has said Federer's peak play on clay is definitely better than Kuerten's, but I do think that losing to Nadal 5 times at RG, an almost unstoppable force at that tournament, should lead us to cut Federer some slack. You really think it's an irrelevant detail? Ferrero, Moya, and Kafelnikov present just as stiff competition, in your judgement?

 

[President]

federer had SEVEN years on pro tour 1998 - 2004 before nadal hit his prime on clay......what did he achieve on clay during that period? he lost to a number of proper clay courters during that period......corretja, kuerten, horna, mantilla etc......post 2005 he beat a bunch of average hardcourters and faded out ferrero and moya to make roland garros finals......he couldn't even give a run for the money to nadal at least in one final out of all four they played......

so please stop sounding like winning would have been automatic for federer in a nadal-less field......

nadal's clay greatness transcends eras......that's why there is a gap of light years between him and the second great clay courter of this era......

Federer only reached his clay peak in 2005. Heck, he only reached his peak on hard courts in 2004. Not sure why you are faulting him for all the losses between 1996-2004 on clay. He was still a streaky player at that point. Still, he reached 3 clay Masters finals in the period you mentioned, winning two of them and beating some great claycourters on the way.

 

[helloworld]

I don't think anyone has said Federer's peak play on clay is definitely better than Kuerten's, but I do think that losing to Nadal 5 times at RG, an almost unstoppable force at that tournament, should lead us to cut Federer some slack. You really think it's an irrelevant detail? Ferrero, Moya, and Kafelnikov present just as stiff competition, in your judgement?

We can argue on their comparative peak level of play, but we can't argue with achievements. Kuerten clearly achieved more than Federer at Roland Garros.

 

[NatF]

I don't think anyone has said Federer's peak play on clay is definitely better than Kuerten's, but I do think that losing to Nadal 5 times at RG, an almost unstoppable force at that tournament, should lead us to cut Federer some slack. You really think it's an irrelevant detail? Ferrero, Moya, and Kafelnikov present just as stiff competition, in your judgement?

I don't think it's irrelevent, but at the same time Kuerten has 2 extra FO's on Federer. There's also the fact that Kuerten's career as a top player was ended by injury. So while we Federer fans can claim Federer was unlucky to peak with Nadal we must also remember Kuerten may have had untapped potential too.

There isn't a chasm between them and I do think Federer should be ranked above several 2 time and most 1 time FO winners. In terms of peak player Federer is probably up there with him as well. But Kuerten has significantly better achievements.

 

[abmk]

federer had SEVEN years on pro tour 1998 - 2004 before nadal hit his prime on clay......what did he achieve on clay during that period? he lost to a number of proper clay courters during that period......corretja, kuerten, horna, mantilla etc......post 2005 he beat a bunch of average hardcourters and faded out ferrero and moya to make roland garros finals......he couldn't even give a run for the money to nadal at least in one final out of all four they played......

so please stop sounding like winning would have been automatic for federer in a nadal-less field......

nadal's clay greatness transcends eras......that's why there is a gap of light years between him and the second great clay courter of this era......

That's BS. federer was developing and putting together his game until 2003. An immensely complex all court and all surface game that takes time to mature. Had almost nothing to do with the surface.

Take out nadal and put in any other great CCer in his place as federer's rival ( except borg ) and he goes out and wins atleast 3 RGs , if not more ..... in any other era, he'd win atleast 2, probably 3 ....

oh and nadal benefited from the weaker CC field as well ...Maybe one player wouldn't have bee able to take him down, but a succession of good CC players would've drained him out to a major extent and someone would've taken advantage ....

He was never ever tested like Kuerten was in RG 97 , for example, muster, medvedev, kafelnikov and the bruguera

 

[helloworld]

That's BS. federer was developing and putting together his game until 2003. An immensely complex all court and all surface game that takes time to mature. Had almost nothing to do with the surface.

Take out nadal and put in any other great CCer in his place as federer's rival ( except borg ) and he goes out and wins atleast 3 RGs , if not more ..... in any other era, he'd win atleast 2, probably 3 ....

It turns out a simple clay court game is more effective than a 'complex' game which takes 7 years to mature then.
Federer won his only RG thanks to Soderling.

 

[TMF]

Subjective? Seriously? So you're saying Ferrero is equally as tough a rival on clay as Nadal?:shock: I think you're losing the plot Mustard.

No. That is you putting words in my mouth. I think Nadal is tougher, but that is my opinion. Nadal has achieved much of his French Open legacy at Federer's expense.

But you don't mention that in your previous posts. Realizing Nadal is a greater rival than Ferrero is one thing, but not to include it in your argument is another.

You said Kuerten is better and play higher level than Federer simply because he overcame his rival while Federer can't overcome his rival. This alone implies that both Federer and Kuerten had equal rival when in fact it's not. There's no question that Nadal is a much tougher opponent than Ferrero and even the most anti-Fed wouldn't disagree.

 

[Start da Game]

Federer only reached his clay peak in 2005. Heck, he only reached his peak on hard courts in 2004. Not sure why you are faulting him for all the losses between 1996-2004 on clay. He was still a streaky player at that point. Still, he reached 3 clay Masters finals in the period you mentioned, winning two of them and beating some great claycourters on the way.

success need not necessarily translate to peak......ivanisevic couldn't win wimbledon when he was actually in his peak......just because federer started having success from 2004, we cannot say that his peak was from that period onwards......

what you see as "streaky" is also due to the presence of last bunch of decent clay courters in federer's early-mid career......

the liberty of having slowed down homogenized surfaces allowed federer to settle down and face a steady paced competition as opposed to an up-and-down ride he had to face early on in his career......

it was a different challenge when players were up against specialists and surfaces played differently......it wasn't a surprise that federer, like most great players had his fair share of troubles against SPECIALISTS......

 

[Start da Game]

That's BS. federer was developing and putting together his game until 2003. An immensely complex all court and all surface game that takes time to mature. Had almost nothing to do with the surface.

Take out nadal and put in any other great CCer in his place as federer's rival ( except borg ) and he goes out and wins atleast 3 RGs , if not more ..... in any other era, he'd win atleast 2, probably 3 ....

oh and nadal benefited from the weaker CC field as well ...Maybe one player wouldn't have bee able to take him down, but a succession of good CC players would've drained him out to a major extent and someone would've taken advantage ....

He was never ever tested like Kuerten was in RG 97 , for example, muster, medvedev, kafelnikov and the bruguera

i myself accepted long back that nadal wouldn't have won 8 roland garros titles in the 90s......he would have had about 6 titles......kuerten and bruguera need to be respected......

 

[jg153040]

It turns out a simple clay court game is more effective than a 'complex' game which takes 7 years to mature then.
Federer won his only RG thanks to Soderling.

Just because Fed lost to Rafa, that doesn't mean his more complex clay game isn't effective.

How many FOs would other legends have if they had to play Nadal 6 times at RG?

 

[jg153040]

i myself accepted long back that nadal wouldn't have won 8 roland garros titles in the 90s......he would have had about 6 titles......kuerten and bruguera need to be respected......

Fed needs to be respected too.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Since Mustard failed to answer my post, I'll take that as proof that he has no counter-argument.

 

[Mustard]

Since Mustard failed to answer my post, I'll take that as proof that he has no counter-argument.

I don't know what else I can tell you, other than to repeat that I believe Kuerten to be a bigger French Open legend than Federer. One would think that it's some sort of crime for me to be having this opinion, going by some people's reactions. It's completely over the top.

 

[kiki]

There is a point when using Nadal as an excuse for Federer not winning more FO titles sounds cheap.In 03 and 04 Kuerten was not at his best yet Federer didn´t even reach those finals.C´mon Verkerk and Gaudio in the final and not Federer?

 

[jg153040]

There is a point when using Nadal as an excuse for Federer not winning more FO titles sounds cheap.In 03 and 04 Kuerten was not at his best yet Federer didn´t even reach those finals.C´mon Verkerk and Gaudio in the final and not Federer?

Nadal also didn't reach those finals. What's your point anyway?

 

[kiki]

Nadal also didn't reach those finals. What's your point anyway?

it is even more against Federer´s fan base claims to aknowledge him as an all time clay court great...

 

[Richie Rich]

clay may not be feds worst surface but it's the worst for him in terms of matching up against other players. it was the opposite on the other surfaces for many years.

 

[jg153040]

it is even more against Federer´s fan base claims to aknowledge him as an all time clay court great...

Not really. Fed also didn't reach finals of W before 2003. So what?

 

[forehand fan]

kuerten's best level on clay is closer to nadal's than federer's.

 

[jg153040]

kuerten's best level on clay is closer to nadal's than federer's.

I don't know. Federer bageled both of them at peak form and is undefeated vs Ferrero, Almagro, Ferrer.

Fed was the only one who defeated Nole clay god mode.

 

[Mustard]

I don't know. Federer bageled both of them at peak form.

At 2002 Hamburg? Kuerten had hip surgery in February 2002, after an injury first sustained during his epic 2001 US Open third round night match against Mirnyi. Kuerten's form declined hugely after this event, and he decided to get the surgery done in February 2002. The surgery halted the alarming drop in form, but he was seldom back to his peak level again.

 

[Djokovic2011]

At 2002 Hamburg? Kuerten had hip surgery in February 2002, after an injury first sustained during his epic 2001 US Open third round night match against Mirnyi. Kuerten's form declined hugely after this event, and he decided to get the surgery done in February 2002. The surgery halted the alarming drop in form, but he was seldom back to his peak level again.

Do you not consider Federer a good clay court player Mustard?

 

[jhhachamp]

I don't know what else I can tell you, other than to repeat that I believe Kuerten to be a bigger French Open legend than Federer. One would think that it's some sort of crime for me to be having this opinion, going by some people's reactions. It's completely over the top.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with having that opinion and I don't see anyone going after you simply for having that opinion. On the contrary, I think the majority of the posters responding to you in this thread actually agree with your opinion.

You have repeatedly refused to consider context of the strength of rivals of Federer and Kuerten on clay in forming your opinion, and that is why other people keep responding to you.

It seems to me that your opinion is that the strength of one's rivals is not important at all and not something that should be taken into account when comparing two different players...am I right? If so, that seems to be the opinion that I and others disagree with you on.

To your credit, you did finally concede that you consider Nadal a tougher rival on clay than Ferrero here:

No. That is you putting words in my mouth. I think Nadal is tougher, but that is my opinion.

 

[tennisfan87]

Those arguing that Federer should be at the same level of Kuerten are using pseudo Nadal fan arguments. Where by "peak play" and supposed "tougher competition" bridge the gap between two players where player A (Kuerten) has substantially better achievements.

Finally somebody seeing the light and telling it like it is So many delusional and blind fanatics in this thread.

Federer is not on Guga's level regarding the French Open nor will he ever be.

3 RG > 1 RG Deal with it!

And you know what's funny? You people, don't like when somebody's questioning Federer's competition from 2004-2007 but here you are, doing the same to Kuerten, questioning his competition on clay.

Why don't you listen to and live by what you preach? You can't have it both ways.

When somebody even dares to question his competition in his most dominant years, you instantly jump on his back.

And you know what? Federer can't have it both ways. He got away with a very weak competition on grass and a slower grass version compared to the 90s and all those grass specialists, so something gotta give.

That's why he got a stronger rival on clay and probably the best ever.

You don't see me going around and saying Rafa should be held higher on the all time list of hardcourt and grasscourt specialists, now do you?

After all, Rafa would have definitely won many more grasscourt and hardcourt titles, if it weren't for Federer (one of the 2 greatest grasscourt players and the greatest hardcourt player of all time) and Djokovic (one of the greatest hardcourt players of all time).

Should I be saying that Rafa is on par with Wimbledon champions such as Laver (4), McEnroe (3), Becker (3) and even Connors (2) and Edberg (2) and only a tier below Borg (5) because of all the lost finals to Federer (one of the 2 greatest grasscourt players of all time)?

Should I be saying that Rafa is on par with AO and US Open champions such as Agassi (4 AO, 2 UO), McEnroe (4 UO), Lendl (2 AO, 3UO) and a tier below Sampras at the UO (5), but on par at the AO (2), a tier below Connors and Federer at the UO (5), but almost on par with Federer at the AO (4) because of the lost finals to Djokovic (one of the greatest hardcourt players of all time) at the AO and UO?

The answer is no and you know it. And finally, should I be saying that Rafa is the greatest of all time because of some supposed weak competition of Federer between 2004 and 2007? The answer is no as well.

Respect the players and their achievements. Respect Guga. After all, you want people to stop underrating and questioning Federer's competition in his most dominant years. Why don't you do the same?

It's all about the number of titles and in that regard 3 > 1. That's all there is to it.