How good could Coria have been?

[ark_28]

I remember the 2004 Clay court season so well, Coria pretty much dominated just losing to Federer in the final in Hamburg, then for some unknown reason he had that melt down in the final v Gaudio.

No doubt that loss pretty much finished his career, although the following year he did make a couple of Masters Series finals on Clay losing both to Nadal, both were great matches.

Last night I was watching some clips of Coria on clay mainly but also other surfaces, and it is just amazing how when time passes we almost forget the greatness and talent of such players.

He was such a gifted player not just with his baseline play but his variation, soft hands, and good net play and great defence!

It really has made me wonder, had that loss not happend in the French Open 2004 and had he continued to progress in line with his undoubted talent,

just how could do you think he could gave become?

Would have have been a poissible rival to Rafa as the King of Clay? Not for a moment saying Rafa would not have come out as the best still, but could Coria possibly have been right up there with Roger and Rafa on Clay and maybe snuck one or 2 titles out of the 7 that Fedal have?


Also do you guys think he would have adapted his game? He had some decent runs on hard courts, and with his touch game, on the slow grass I believe he could have done well at Wimbledon too.

In case you need some refreshing here are some of the best points from when he was at his best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9aQOK64NLE

 

[BeHappy]

He was the only player who could have challenged Nadal, I think he could have won 1-2 French opens, although overall Nadal is a little better, probably would have won 6-7/10 of their matches.

It would also have opened up the French open draw for Federer, because if Nadal drew Coria in the semi final and was beaten, Federer could have beaten Coria in the final.

 

[The Bawss]

He was the only player who could have challenged Nadal, I think he could have won 1-2 French opens, although overall Nadal is a little better, probably would have won 6-7/10 of their matches.

It would also have opened up the French open draw for Federer, because if Nadal drew Coria in the semi final and was beaten, Federer could have beaten Coria in the final.

If he can't beat Gaudio, he can't beat Nadal.

 

[ark_28]

If he can't beat Gaudio, he can't beat Nadal.

He clearly can beat Gaudio and has done a fair few times!

Yes that French Open final he let slip from 2 sets up and championship points and in turn that affected his career, but that was severe nerves rather than him not being able to beat Gaudio.

I was looking in terms of his sheer talent as to whether he would have shaken things up a bit on clay and at the top of the men's game.

My views are pretty similar to BeHappy.

 

[BeHappy]

He clearly can beat Gaudio and has done a fair few times!

Yes that French Open final he let slip from 2 sets up and championship points and in turn that affected his career, but that was severe nerves rather than him not being able to beat Gaudio.

I was looking in terms of his sheer talent as to whether he would have shaken things up a bit on clay and at the top of the men's game.

My views are pretty similar to BeHappy.

I don't know if you remember their Rome Masters final, that's pretty much the best clay court match in terms of quality I have ever seen in my life by a country mile.

 

[jelle v]

It;s a player I wish was still around.. I also believe (i know, I can never prove it) that he would have challenged Nadal on clay. If only Coria would have won against Gaudio, his self confidence would have been sky high and I think we would have seen fantastic matches on clay between him and Nadal.

Besides that, Coria had a game of rare beauty in my opinion, his drop shots were magnificent. His defence skills were of the charts by the and in my opinion even better than Nadal's, although nadal has the better offense game.

 

[Seth]

I would have loved to see a clay-based rivalry with Nadal. El Mago was such a great player.

 

[Hood_Man]

I saw Coria for the first time a few months ago when I downloaded a copy of his French Open final. What shocked me the most was not necessarily his speed but how often he approached the net, he was like a demon. I knew the result before watching it but even so I got sucked in and was still shocked when he lost.

A bizarre match. I think tennis was robbed of potentially one of the great rivalries that day, Coria vs Nadal.

 

[atatu]

He was no David Ferrer, he didn't have half the heart that Ferrer has, so that's how good he could have been.

 

[jelle v]

He was no David Ferrer, he didn't have half the heart that Ferrer has, so that's how good he could have been.

Twice as good as Ferrer..

 

[atatu]

Twice as good as Ferrer..

Coria, career high #3, 9 titles, 218 wins and 114 losses. Ferrer, career high #4, 12 titles and counting, 430 wins and counting, 232 losses. I don't think anyone believes that Coria was "twice as good" maybe half as good.

 

[ark_28]

It;s a player I wish was still around.. I also believe (i know, I can never prove it) that he would have challenged Nadal on clay. If only Coria would have won against Gaudio, his self confidence would have been sky high and I think we would have seen fantastic matches on clay between him and Nadal.

Besides that, Coria had a game of rare beauty in my opinion, his drop shots were magnificent. His defence skills were of the charts by the and in my opinion even better than Nadal's, although nadal has the better offense game.

I agree totally, tennis was robbed of an amazing rivalry as Hood_man said

his creativity and touch was out of this world.

 

[ark_28]

Coria, career high #3, 9 titles, 218 wins and 114 losses. Ferrer, career high #4, 12 titles and counting, 430 wins and counting, 232 losses. I don't think anyone believes that Coria was "twice as good" maybe half as good.

Seeing as Ferrer's career has lated far longer than Coria's its a bit daft to start saying that he has won matches means he is twice as good.

Ferrer is a decent solid pro, but in now way is he or has he ever been in the same league as Coria, ie a dominant player on a given surface.

 

[atatu]

Seeing as Ferrer's career has lated far longer than Coria's its a bit daft to start saying that he has won matches means he is twice as good.

Ferrer is a decent solid pro, but in now way is he or has he ever been in the same league as Coria, ie a dominant player on a given surface.

We can agree to disagree, but to say that Ferrer is not "in the same league" is "draft" as well. Ferrer is a much more versatile player who can play on all surfaces and I think having longevity counts for a lot, that's one reason why Agassi is considered an all time great.

 

[NadalAgassi]

He could have added some to the lackluster clay court depth of the 2005-2010 period, but beyond that not much. With Nadal's emergence and Federer becoming a bonafide top clay courter, he probably never wins the French. His best shot in hindsight was always going to be 2004, and to a lesser extent 2005 which he blew by losing to Davydenko. On non clay surfaces he was never going to be a major factor.

As for Ferrer vs Coria, Coria at his best is the better clay courter, but Ferrer is the better player on all other surfaces IMO. You would never see Ferrer beat Nadal twice at hard court slams, or make the finals of the ATP World Championships.

 

[Beryl]

Is Coria still the only person to bagel Nadal on slow clay?

 

[jelle v]

Coria, career high #3, 9 titles, 218 wins and 114 losses. Ferrer, career high #4, 12 titles and counting, 430 wins and counting, 232 losses. I don't think anyone believes that Coria was "twice as good" maybe half as good.

I was just pointing out how idiotic I found your logic to be.. talking about something as subjective and immeasurable as "heart" and then implicitly concluding that Ferrer is twice as good as Coria was.

And then you come up with this post.. the numbers clearly are in favor of Coria, but you keep implying that Coria was half as good as Ferrer.. Sure mate.. :roll:

 

[ThoughtCrime]

Is Coria still the only person to bagel Nadal on slow clay?

Nah, Federer did it in Hamburg 2007. Maybe others did too.

 

[tacou]

IF Coria won 2004 FO maybe things would've been a bit more interesting, but at best he sneaks out the 05 French as well.

Ferrer's mental strength is about a million times better than Coria, but Coria's got all the weapons. Even on hard court I'd go with Coria (he made USO QF didn't he? On his way down the tubes, too, epic match vs Ginepri)

 

[JoelDali]

Strong 5.5+

 

[atatu]

I was just pointing out how idiotic I found your logic to be.. talking about something as subjective and immeasurable as "heart" and then implicitly concluding that Ferrer is twice as good as Coria was.

And then you come up with this post.. the numbers clearly are in favor of Coria, but you keep implying that Coria was half as good as Ferrer.. Sure mate.. :roll:

Ok "mate" but you are the one who said that Coria was "twice as good" as Ferrer...numbers don't back up your statement at all, and if you really think he had more heart than Ferrer, well ok....

 

[NadalAgassi]

IF Coria won 2004 FO maybe things would've been a bit more interesting, but at best he sneaks out the 05 French as well.

Ferrer's mental strength is about a million times better than Coria, but Coria's got all the weapons. Even on hard court I'd go with Coria (he made USO QF didn't he? On his way down the tubes, too, epic match vs Ginepri)

Coria doesnt have "weapons". He is just a grinder like Coria. Maybe the backhand down the line is a weapon on clay, but that is it. He is faster and a better grinder than Ferrer at his best, but Ferrer actually has more "weapons" if anything. Ferrer's forehand is very big, much bigger than Coria's, his return is one of the best, and he hits the ball earlier than Coria does, especialy on faster courts. Not to mention Ferrer is both physically and mentally stronger than Coria who is fragile in both departments.

So making the U.S Open quarters, losing an "epic" to Ginepri is supposed to be impressive as your best hard court showing. Dont me laugh.

 

[tacou]

Coria doesnt have "weapons". He is just a grinder like Coria. Maybe the backhand down the line is a weapon on clay, but that is it. He is faster and a better grinder than Ferrer at his best, but Ferrer actually has more "weapons" if anything. Ferrer's forehand is very big, much bigger than Coria's, his return is one of the best, and he hits the ball earlier than Coria does, especialy on faster courts. Not to mention Ferrer is both physically and mentally stronger than Coria who is fragile in both departments.

So making the U.S Open quarters, losing an "epic" to Ginepri is supposed to be impressive as your best hard court showing. Dont me laugh.

Ferrer's hard court results are better than Coria's but they aren't exactly hall of fame worthy either. By the way, the
match with Ginepri was "epic," if you haven't seen it I suggest you watch the highlights.

Ferrer physically is a beast but Coria was faster and proved on many occasions he could go the distance.

Ferrer's forehand is not bigger than Coria's. He takes it earlier than Coria, that's for sure.

Coria's backhand, drop shot, lob and net play are all superior to Ferrer and I'd class them as weapons.

Coria leads h2h 4-1 I think.

What bothers me most is your snarky attitude. what a D.

here's a bit better quality of Coria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HymGHfzkU4A&feature=related
2005 TMC vs Nalbandian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgaA2njPMXQ
vs Ginepri

 

[NadalAgassi]

I agree the Coria-Ginepri match was excellent, and that was possible since they both played their best and were evenly matched. It also showed that Coria at his best is only about the same level as Ginepri at his career peak form on hard courts, which doesnt suggest he is a top level hard court player. Coria would never beat Nadal twice in hard court slams as Ferrer has done, or make the ATP World Championships final.

It is strange the best highlights you could find to showcase Corias ability in a non clay match are losses, one of them in straight sets. That just confirms he wasnt a threat outside of clay (even less of one than Ferrer who himself isnt a huge one).

 

[elpolaco84]

i think he would've surpassed Federer in the Race if he''d won the FO. About comparing him to Ferrer, the numbers don't lie: 1Gs final 2master series titles 5finals(1on hard Miami) but we can't live of "what ifs" and "what woulds hads". He retired.period

 

[Mustard]

Coria would have been a threat on clay every year had his career not been cut short by service yips. He has to be one of the most unluckiest players in tennis history.

As for the Coria vs. Ferrer debate, Ferrer is better for consistency and longevity in the game, but Coria's peak game is much superior to Ferrer's.

 

[stormholloway]

If he can't beat Gaudio, he can't beat Nadal.

That's Talk Tennis logic at its best right there.

 

[NadalAgassi]

i think he would've surpassed Federer in the Race if he''d won the FO. About comparing him to Ferrer, the numbers don't lie: 1Gs final 2master series titles 5finals(1on hard Miami) but we can't live of "what ifs" and "what woulds hads". He retired.period

Coria was better on clay than Ferrer was on any surface. That is clear. Ferrer is still better on non clay surfaces though, that was my only point. Coria was a 1 surface player.

 

[Mustard]

Coria was better on clay than Ferrer was on any surface. That is clear. Ferrer is still better on non clay surfaces though, that was my only point. Coria was a 1 surface player.

Coria was a 2-time US Open quarter finalist and a runner-up of Miami, where he had to retire because of kidney stones, so he wasn't totally useless on hardcourts.

 

[fps]

I think the difficulty of comparing him with Ferrer points to where he'd ultimately end up in the list, although I personally think he was more talented than Ferrer.

I wish he'd won that 2004 French Open, it just seemed like he would have been a worthy winner, and yes he might have then gone back to the practice courts and said *yes, I can get even better* whereas he seems to have gone back and said *there's nothing I can do, this isn't going to happen for me*.

He would have had epic matches with Nadal for sure, but Nadal would have won them. A lost talent to rank with the *lost* talents of Safin (the best of the three I'm putting together) and Nalbandian. Regrettable.

 

[Crisstti]

I saw Coria for the first time a few months ago when I downloaded a copy of his French Open final. What shocked me the most was not necessarily his speed but how often he approached the net, he was like a demon. I knew the result before watching it but even so I got sucked in and was still shocked when he lost.

A bizarre match. I think tennis was robbed of potentially one of the great rivalries that day, Coria vs Nadal.

It was such a bizarre match :?

About comparing him to Ferrer, it's true Ferrer doesn't have a slam final and I don't think he's won any masters (?), but I'd say he has had to play tougher competition...

 

[Mainad]

About comparing him to Ferrer, it's true Ferrer doesn't have a slam final and I don't think he's won any masters (?),..

He is 0-3 in Masters finals (Rome 2010 lost to Nadal, MC 2011 lost to Nadal, Shanghai 2011 lost to Murray).

He has 12 titles: 5 ATP500s and 7 ATP250s.

 

[peRFection]

I started watching tennis around 2003. and Coria was my favorite player back then. I remember the FO 2004 final really well. It took me few days to recover from that match . if Coria had won that match, his career and Nadal's career will be a lot different. I still feel sorry for him. he was such a good player. I remember the FO camera people were so crazy about Coria's girlfriend. she was a really fine babe that's why... From scale 0 to Federer's forehand she was 8.5

 

[tacou]

It is strange the best highlights you could find to showcase Corias ability in a non clay match are losses, one of them in straight sets. That just confirms he wasnt a threat outside of clay (even less of one than Ferrer who himself isnt a huge one).

all it confirms is there is a lack of HQ Coria on youtube..

 

[westside]

Coria would have been a threat on clay every year had his career not been cut short by service yips. He has to be one of the most unluckiest players in tennis history.

As for the Coria vs. Ferrer debate, Ferrer is better for consistency and longevity in the game, but Coria's peak game is much superior to Ferrer's.

^^ this guy right here is starting to make the most sense on this forum. Kudos Mustard.

Anyone who watched Coria in his prime should have no trouble saying that he was a better player than Ferrer is. His movement on court was absolutely incredible. Classic clay courter.

 

[reversef]

Coria was simply incredible. But after what happened in RG 2004, I knew that his nerves would always stop him. I still had hopes that he would win one FO title, but Rafa arrived the next year and their Rome final didn't help for Coria. Yes, it's a loss of talent and tennis was robbed of what could have been the best clay court rivalry (Nadal-Coria).

 

[equinox]

A combination of things destroyed Coria.

FO 2004.

Carla and Zabaleta hanky panky.

Divorce $$$.

Depression.

Rise of fed and nadal.

 

[monfed]

I think Coria would've fared better against Ralph than Federer on clay,this much I'm quite sure of.

 

[DejZ]

Hands down Coria is better player than Ferrer,look at their head to head El Mago destroyed David few times.Ferrer career is much longer and thats why he has won more turnaments and earned more money.

 

[Mustard]

A combination of things destroyed Coria.

FO 2004.

Carla and Zabaleta hanky panky.

Divorce $$$.

Depression.

Rise of fed and nadal.

1. When Coria was a rising player aged 19 and had cracked the top 30, he failed a drugs test. The news came through the day after Goran Ivanisevic's Wimbledon win, 3 months after the failed drugs test in Barcelona. 7 months later, Coria proved himself that nandrolone was in the supplement he was taking without it being listed on the label. He later received compensation running into millions.

2. The 2004 French Open final debacle. This damaged his mojo and his confidence.

3. The right shoulder injury against Florian Mayer at 2004 Wimbledon, causing him to miss the August to October period of that year. He played at the Masters Cup in Houston, but didn't win a set.

4. The tough losses to Nadal in the finals of 2005 Monte Carlo (3-6, 1-6, 6-0, 5-7) and 2005 Rome (4-6, 6-3, 3-6, 6-4, 6-7), especially the Rome final.

5. A surprising 4-set loss to Davydenko in the R16 of the 2005 French Open, when Coria had seemed the clear favourite to get to the final from the bottom half of the draw with both Federer and Nadal in the top half.

6. The most serious trouble of all. The service yips, which started to affect his game in July 2005 and through the rest of the summer. His service yips started to plague his game in late 2005, and got really critical in 2006, forcing him off the main tour altogether after the 2006 US Open, at which time he was regularly serving a colossal number of double faults in almost every match he played. At that 2006 US Open, Coria retired while 2-3 down in the first set against Ryan Sweeting in the first round, and Coria had already served 5 double faults.

7. Comeback attempts from 2007-2009 never really worked, despite flashes of his old genius, and the service yips was still there, as well as injury problems.

8. I've heard rumours about Carla leaving Coria for Zabaleta, but I've never found any good source for this.

 

[reversef]

Hands down Coria is better player than Ferrer,look at their head to head El Mago destroyed David few times.Ferrer career is much longer and thats why he has won more turnaments and earned more money.

Coria had so much more potential, that's for sure. But Ferrer was able to maximize his own potential, while Coria underachieved. That's a pity, really, because for people like me who love clay court tennis, he was simply phenomenal.

 

[Rhino]

I've often wondered the same thing. Although I was very happy for Gaudio and I really enjoyed that final, I wonder if the result was really good for the future of tennis.

To steal from Agassi. "Tennis lost that night"

 

[Mustard]

A combination of things destroyed Coria.

FO 2004.

Carla and Zabaleta hanky panky.

Divorce $$$.

Depression.

Rise of fed and nadal.

Those rumours have been around for years. The picture in the below links tell a different story, especially with the divorce rumour.

http://twicsy.com/i/9Mghob
http://familledesport.skyrock.com/3114781953-Thiago-Carla-et-Guillermo-Coria.html

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Without Nadal, he would have won a lot of clay masters and a few RG, he would have split the 2005-2010 RG, with Federer I say.

But with Nadal being the clay beast that he was, he wouldn't have achieved a lot even if he had stayed competitive for all these years. Maybe he could have sneaked a RG title, but Nadal would still dominate that slam. He would have won the ocassional M1000 title on the surface too.

And about the comparison with Ferrer, Coria was better by a margin. He was a lot more talented, both were grinders but Coria had a beautiful game and magical drop shots. On clay he was clearly better, maybe Ferrer was a bit better outside clay but it's still debatable. Coria was improving a lot outisde clay before his meltdown in 2005. His serve let him down against Ginepri (where there problems started) if not he would have made the semis at the USO (in fast courts, not the crap we have today), made the final of Miami and was beating Roddick untill he got injured, he made the 4th round at Wimbledon losing to Roddick and reached the final at Hertogensboch.

Having said that, Ferrer is having and will end with a better career obviously given that Coria dissapeared when he was 24. But peak vs peak Coria is defintely better.

 

[Laurie]

I saw Coria at the French Open in 2004 beat Moya, the year he should have won the final. I would say Coria was one of the most naturally talented players I have seen play tennis, everyone thinks of Rios when they talk about natural talent but it is a shame what happened to Coria.

 

[Mustard]

I saw Coria at the French Open in 2004 beat Moya, the year he should have won the final. I would say Coria was one of the most naturally talented players I have seen play tennis, everyone thinks of Rios when they talk about natural talent but it is a shame what happened to Coria.

Yes, that was a fantastic win for Coria over Moya in that quarter final at the 2004 French Open. Moya had served for both the first set and the second set, but Coria won the match 7-5, 7-6, 6-3. With Nalbandian having beaten former 3-time French Open champion, Kuerten, in the quarter finals, and Kuerten having taken out Federer in the third round, it was thought for sure that the winner of Coria vs. Moya would win the title, so it seemed like Coria had got through the hardest bit with flying colours. John McEnroe even said that he would stand on his head for 10 minutes if Coria lost to Henman in the semi finals. When Coria got to the final against Gaudio, virtually everyone thought Coria was going to win without much fuss. Patrick McEnroe was talking like Coria was going to win without any doubt at all.

 

[KineticChain]

He could have been the very best, better than no one ever was. To train was his real test, to beat them was his cause. He traveled across the land, winning far and wide, each match to understand, the power that's inside.
Coria, he had the key, he knew it was his destiny. Coria, oh Gaudio was not his friend, for The French Open was his to win.
Coria, his forehand so true, if only his serve could have pulled him through.
Coria beat Agustín Calleri
Coria beat Nicolás Massú
Cooorrrrriiiiaaaaa!
Gotta beat them all
Coria

 

[Ronaldo]

G beat himself Btw, Coria was the King of Clay before Nadal.

 

[ctoth666]

I truly do believe that Nadal's unprecedented success on clay would not have been possible if Nalbandian hadn't been a total bust and Coria had remained in the game. Nadal's success indicates that he didn't have a real clay rival, ever. Federer was never up to par, but I honestly feel that Nadal should've had to wrestle away the "best clay-courter" title from someone, yet he never really did. The first year he played the French, he won it convincingly. I liken it to Nadal having to overcome Federer at Wimbledon for three straight years before he won it in 2008. That was a logical progression. But on clay, there was no one really in his way, which was odd in some ways. I still think he would be the clay GOAT today, but it's a shame that he didn't have to overcome a real rival on the clay, as in someone who was able to actually able to beat him and not just screw everything up *cough* Federer *cough*

 

[monfed]

Eh with Coria around Ralph would have fewer RGs, no doubt about it.