World Beater
Hall of Fame
you didnt answer my question?
what is your point? that rafa owns fed on clay? that is really a big surprise. LOL
How would Federer have done against Sampras' 95-99 French Open draws?
- Thread starter JennyS
- Start date
you didnt answer my question?
what is your point? that rafa owns fed on clay? that is really a big surprise. LOL
Cyan
Hall of Fame
Rafa was super exhausted at the 2007 Hamburg final just like he was super exhausted and injured to boot at the 2009 Madrid final. Only way Fed beats Rafa on clay has been like this...
Roger Federer: 1 French Open, 3 runner ups, 5 clay court masters, 10 overall titles
Sergi Bruguera: 2 French Opens, 1 runner up, 2 clay court masters, 13 overall titles
Jim Courier: 2 French Opens, 1 runner up, 2 clay court masters, 5 overall titles
Thomas Muster: 1 French Open, 0 runner ups, 6 clay court masters, 40 overall titles
I think Federer clearly has the edge over Courier, looking at overall career results. Pretty even with Bruguera and not too far behind Muster (who has a ridiculously inflated title count because all he played on was clay), and of course none of these guys had to play anyone near Nadal's caliber in most of their clay court finals.
Sergi Bruguera: 2 French Opens, 1 runner up, 2 clay court masters, 13 overall titles
Jim Courier: 2 French Opens, 1 runner up, 2 clay court masters, 5 overall titles
Thomas Muster: 1 French Open, 0 runner ups, 6 clay court masters, 40 overall titles
I think Federer clearly has the edge over Courier, looking at overall career results. Pretty even with Bruguera and not too far behind Muster (who has a ridiculously inflated title count because all he played on was clay), and of course none of these guys had to play anyone near Nadal's caliber in most of their clay court finals.
Why do you have to continue to troll. Look, we all know Rafa overall is better than Roger on clay(except 2009). By many fans, he’s the best ever on dirt but he’s not unbeatable. There’s no need for you to downtalk Federer. This thread is about Roger’s chances of winning RG in the 90s.
zagor
Bionic Poster
So according to you a guy who reached 4 FO finals in a row(and has a FO title and beat Nadal in 2 masters finals on clay)and has been Nadal's main opposition on clay and the second best player on that surface by far for the last 5 years isn't even a "good" clayer? Man,then it means this is an amazingly weak clay era when a guy who isn't even good on clay accomplishes that much which doesn't say much about Rafa's achievements on clay,all those titles he apparently won by default because he never even faced a "good" claycourter let alone a great one.
You're right Nadal is no where near being a clay GOAT,heck if we follow your logic his achievements aren't even impressive as those of Muster and Bruguera(not to mention Guga)because unlike Nadal those guys faced great claycourters in their day while Nadal's main rival on clay isn't even "good" on that surface(according to you).
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yes and Fed was exhausted/had mono/injuried back and hemorrhoids in all of his clay matches against Nadal except in 2007 Hamburg and in Madrid this year.
World Beater
Hall of Fame
bunch of excuses once again.
federer had mono in 2008, and was not fit and prepared.
see it is quite easy. anyone can make up excuses like rafatards.
rafa only has to blame himself for his poor fitness...always arriving to finals exhausted. LOL.
JennyS
Hall of Fame
Fed was a much better claycourter in 2007 than in 2004.
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
It depends how you define being a clay court player. There is no doubt he can play on other surfaces. However there is also no doubt his best surface is clearly clay.
World Beater
Hall of Fame
ok...you are right.
corretja is a grass court player.
LOL.
Oh yes he is a hard court player..
wait. LOL.
the fact is corretja reached an RG final and had his best results on clay. Therefore he is a clay courter, not in the sense, that he couldnt play on other courts. But like kuerten his results in slams outside of the french are significantly lower than his clay court results.
You cannot say the same about nadal for example. He has reached 2 wimbledon finals and a hardcourt final, even though he his best success was on clay. he has won multiple Master series, even indoors.
but once again, the point is that Sampras should not be losing to corretja on grass or indoors if sampras is supposed to be the most clutch fast courter ever. Those are embarrasing results considering that
a) corretja is the same generation - so unprime sampras is not an excuse!
b) sampras choked or either had points to win the match.
i'm not trying to belittle sampras for the respectful sampras posters, but merely pointing out some hypocrisy to those who have a nostalgic view of the game.
I mean when your atp year end championships is moya vs corretja - something is wrong with that picture...i thought this was the era of giants and supreme fast court players.
Last edited:
JeMar
Legend
Yikes, someone needs to hit the books.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Yes, he was better in 2007 but not by much. So I'd say 2007 Fed could probably take a set or two against a wheelchair Guga.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
edmondsm
Legend
Yeah, he had a clay title before RG that year at the Brazil Open. Made a final at Vina del Mar too. Judging from the scoreline he was playing a hell of a match with Gaudio in Barcelona before retiring from that match. I think the hip was flaring up on him at times then, but wasn't a constant problem yet. He played a marathon in the 1st round of RG against Almagro, and then just destroyed his next opponent. And if you watched that match against Federer (sadly the only time I got to watch a Guga match) you saw a special player out there.
federerfanatic
Banned
Your logic is poor. Single match examples are not good barometers. Federer played a very poor match that day and Kuerten despite being well past his prime played an inspired match. Kuerten had nothing to lose in that match as nobody expected anything from him by then, while Federer was defending his #1 ranking and had the pressure of being one of the favorites that year, facing the unusual situation of facing a dangerous former champion in an early round. It happens. Federer and Kuerten played twice on clay, and back in 2002 Federer ranked only 13th in the World and a shadow of the player he would be in 2004 beat Kuerten and bageled him in the final set when Kuerten was still near the top. If we used that flawed logic of just using other single match barometers Kuerten in his prime in 2001 lost in 3 straight sets in his home Brazil to Hewitt on clay in Davis Cup, the same Hewitt that Federer beat in their only meeting on clay 6-4, 6-0 in 2004. Prime Kuerten also once had a 6-2, 6-0 loss to Carlos Moya on clay, the same Moya that Federer has beaten easily on all surfaces ever since he was a teenager. Kuerten as defending Champion of the French Open in 1998 lost to 18 year old Safin, and peak Kuerten in 2000 took 5 sets to hold off Safin in their next meeting on clay in the Hamburg final. This being the same Safin a pre-prime Federer destroyed on clay badly twice in early 2002 when Safin was now in his prime and solidly ranked in the top 3 in the World. So you see how easy it is to paint the picture you want from single match examples (actually in these cases more than one match in fact though).
And for the record if Kuerten had lost that 5 setter to Muster in the 3rd round of the 97 French he would have ended 1997 ranked even lower than 2004, so 1997 wasnt even close to prime Kuerten either. His winning the French Open was simply an amazing feat that particular year.
Last edited:
federerfanatic
Banned
I would say he is an excellent player on clay, hard courts, or indoors. The only surface he isnt particularly good on was grass.
federerfanatic
Banned
Yes you are right on Courier. Courier was way past it by 95 and would not be a major threat at the French. 95-99 Federer's main competition at the French would have been Muster in 95-97, Bruguera 95-97, Chang 95-97, Kafelnikov 95-99, Moya 97-99, Corretja 96-99, Costa 95-99, and Kuerten 97-99. Still a pretty good group mind you.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Man!! These ******* excuses just keep getting longer and longer!!! I don't have time to read these long excuses. Please shorten your excuse next time.
Polvorin
Professional
Broken hipped Guga whipped Prime 2004 Federer in straights.
Federer has said he did not even consider himself a real contender for the French until 2005. Obviously he was not an outstanding clay courter early in his career, so calling that prime Federer really speaks to your level of trolling.
Polvorin
Professional
Perhaps it is because the idea is that 2007 Federer would be playing 1997 Guga. 2004 Federer had not yet realized his clay court ability. Of course this is all just hypothetical nonsense, but if you can't grasp simple ideas, probably best not to call names.
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
I agree with this, few people realizes how good a clay-courter Fed has been the last 5 years
Yes, I'm awared of that. I'm just pointing out Fed detractors trying to include name(courier) as if he was in his prime. He was washed up in the late 90s.
Federer had a great run for 5 straight years, while the players you listed above peak at a certain years(not all 5 years). That's why my prediction that Roger could win 2-3 RG in the 90s.
Tell that to helloworld; he's still trap in 2004.
egn
Hall of Fame
I had ignored this thread for a while just because I refused to read it but after reading the first post I swear I fell off my seat laughing.
First the OP said Muster was <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Nadal. Muster at his best was as good as anyone on clay. Look up Muster's record of 1995-1996. HE WAS 111-5 on clay over a two year period. Sure I will give you Muster was a flake in France losing to tons of no names he would crush 6-0, 6-1 outside of the French Open but in 1995 Muster was steamrolling through everyone and not to be mean to Brug, or Courier but Muster was probably far better than the two of them on the surface even if results say otherwise. Hell I would say Muster was better than Kuerten if I could prove it. Watch Muster play on clay. Watch his 1995 Rome match was Brug that was high quality clay tennis. Had Muster not been such a flake in France who knows ho wmany French Opens he would have. He nearly choked away 1995 anyway against Costa, but Fed beating Muster is hard to believe. Muster at his absolute best could probably even go toe to toe with Nadal.
For 1996 you have a case but Fed would have not been cruising as past prime Brug could trouble Fed. I don't see Courier troubling Fed as much because I still don't know how he won two sets on Sampras. Sampras was outplaying Courier in that first set and the second set Sampras screwed up but it was clear that Sampras was in control of the match from the third set on. Hell had Sampras been able to finish off Courier in less than 5 he might have bene champion that year but he was exhausted by the semis. Brug could be issues to Fed as he played a game like Nadal and Kafelnikov or Stitch could cause him issues. This is definitely not his most likely won to win out of the bunch, he could but definitely not a cruise. You don't cruise though a slam with Brug, COurier, Kafelnikov and Stitch in your draw.
1997 there is a chance young Guga or Brug could take him out and what the hell does BEATING YOUZHNY HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
1998...ehh
First the OP said Muster was <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Nadal. Muster at his best was as good as anyone on clay. Look up Muster's record of 1995-1996. HE WAS 111-5 on clay over a two year period. Sure I will give you Muster was a flake in France losing to tons of no names he would crush 6-0, 6-1 outside of the French Open but in 1995 Muster was steamrolling through everyone and not to be mean to Brug, or Courier but Muster was probably far better than the two of them on the surface even if results say otherwise. Hell I would say Muster was better than Kuerten if I could prove it. Watch Muster play on clay. Watch his 1995 Rome match was Brug that was high quality clay tennis. Had Muster not been such a flake in France who knows ho wmany French Opens he would have. He nearly choked away 1995 anyway against Costa, but Fed beating Muster is hard to believe. Muster at his absolute best could probably even go toe to toe with Nadal.
For 1996 you have a case but Fed would have not been cruising as past prime Brug could trouble Fed. I don't see Courier troubling Fed as much because I still don't know how he won two sets on Sampras. Sampras was outplaying Courier in that first set and the second set Sampras screwed up but it was clear that Sampras was in control of the match from the third set on. Hell had Sampras been able to finish off Courier in less than 5 he might have bene champion that year but he was exhausted by the semis. Brug could be issues to Fed as he played a game like Nadal and Kafelnikov or Stitch could cause him issues. This is definitely not his most likely won to win out of the bunch, he could but definitely not a cruise. You don't cruise though a slam with Brug, COurier, Kafelnikov and Stitch in your draw.
1997 there is a chance young Guga or Brug could take him out and what the hell does BEATING YOUZHNY HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
1998...ehh
helloworld
Hall of Fame
egn
Hall of Fame
Did you watch tennis in 2002? Fed going into the 2002 French Open was looked upon as one of the contenders. More people were picking him then eventual winner Albert Costa. Fed had just grabbed a major clay court title, he had beaten prime Kuerten and Safin just a week before the French Open started en route to that Hamburg title.
He was also an outside favorite in 2003 due to his wins against JCF and his run to the finals in Rome. He deifnitely wasn't the favorite but he was a contendor. Though 2002 he was a real contendor. He had gone to the QFs in 2001 had won Hamburg beating two of the top players on clay in the field at the moment. I chose him to go to the semis at least in 2002. Pretty sure most of the other people who were watching that French Open had picked him to do some damage. In 2002 basically it came down to if he could beat JCF in my eyes as I didn't see anyone else remaining in the draw as a threat to him. Oh how was I wrong, but he was definitely a contendor in 2002. You don't win a clay court master series beating Gustavo Kuerten if you are not a contendor on clay.
Polvorin
Professional
1) Federer has always had success in Hamburg. The conditions suit him.
2) That was his first career ATP clay court title. I don't think winning one title suddenly qualifies you as a favorite for the French, which would have been Kuerten, Ferrero, perhaps Moya or Corretja. Any of those players would have likely crushed him at the French at that stage of his career.
You can not have it both ways.
The truth is ANY ONE of these guys are MORE THAN CAPABLE of beating each other. Muster who was NOTORIOUS for struggling against net rushers on ANY surface, beat "prime" freaking Sampras indoors at a masters tournament.
People on here will say outlandish things like Nadal is waaaaaay faster than Muster. Oh, really then, what was Muster? Freaking molassas? REALLY NOW, what does that mean then? Muster got to 99.8% of balls during his prime, and Nadal will get to MAYBE one or two or gasp three whole more balls during a match than Muster couldn't? Even freaking Todd Martin managed to get to MOST balls. The difference is ABSOLUTELY miniscule on here, yet OVERBLOWN by fans to no end. Muster during his peak covered the court ASTONISHINGLY well, you don't win as much as he did on clay at his peak without...and that is ALL that matters. He covered the court MORE than well enough to "match up" with Nadal. It would not be some overwhelming deciding factor like people make it seem on here. People mistake being a graceful athlete sometimes for being an athlete, and Muster was definitely an athlete. Muster was on the Austrian national junior soccer team growing up while simultaneously juggling tennis, seriously, what was he chopped liver? Bruguera retired from tennis with a broken body, and despite no formal soccer experience, played lower-division pro soccer for several years upon retiring. Again, what was he chopped liver? I distinctly remember Bud Collins utter that he didn't think he'd ever seen anybody be able to to extend a point longer when in trouble than Bruguera EVER during one of those French finals. People have VERY short memories.
The TRUTH is that the level of the elite guys is FAR closer than people remember.
People say oh Nadal hits so much bigger, better, badder than Muster. Oh yeah, really? I'd really like to see Nadal get the same kind of results with Muster's equipment setup...NOT going to happen.
Furthermore, 97 Guga easily could have lost many matches on the way to the final, SO WHAT? Edberg could have easily lost many match on the way to the second US Open final? WHO CARES? He still freaking WON didn't he?
People go on and on about what constitutes "prime" on here, but the reality is this, even outside of prime or in prime, NONE of that precludes you from having a "zone" day. Guga said of his 97 finals performance, that he would "NEVER be able to play that well again," get this, DURING his so-call "prime." People have zone days pre-prime, during prime, and outside of prime. It's ONE FREAKING DAY...like get this how, "not prime" Bruguera destroyed Medvedev soooo hard on hard courts at the 97 Lipton that he had to LET Medvedev win some games up 6-love, 5-love to help save his good friend from some embarrassment. Bruguera was said to have played soooo astonishingly well that match that Medvedev could win only a handful of points the entire first set...it HAPPENS. Zone days can happen at ANY time and at ANY place when you're talking about world class players.
And on ANY GIVEN DAY, *any* of these great FREAKING GREAT players can absolutely WHOOP each other's behinds. The lack of respect on these boards is astonishing to me. Elite play from elite guys on their best days will be MORE than a handful for ANYONE.
All these well he would have beat so and so if he were alive back then type threads are both insulting and pointless. All they do is manage to insult fans of players to no end and "virtual warfare" begins ad nauseum. My guy is sooooo greater than your guy...I know this because God speaks to me in my sleep.
Last edited:
anointedone
Banned
Bruguera was awful on clay in 96, he lost half the matches he played, and he even lost to Sampras at that years French, LOL! Considering the surface Kafelnikov has never beaten a player close to Federer's caliber in a slam. His biggest slam wins are a gassed Sampras on clay, and Todd Martin with a stiff back on hard courts. Forget about Kafelnikov, the guy who needed dream draws a lucky horeshoe up his ass to win his 2 slams, ever beating Federer in a slam anywhere. Not in a million years. You already covered Courier. Stich is not really a clay courter, he simply played out of his mind for one day vs Muster and then had a good draw to the final of people he could beat even on clay, before being outclassed in the final by the aforementioned weakish slam champion Kafelnikov. Yes Federer would have won this one in a cakewalk with all the early upsets. Easiest ones would be 96 and 98 by far.
Agree here although Bruguera wasnt that good anymore this year.
I am not sure what you are implying. Carlos Moya won that year. Moya is Federer's lapdog since Federer was 17 or 18.
anointedone
Banned
Excellent post. Though it will be lost on brainless trolls like helloworld who wouldnt know their foot from their own rear end.
Polvorin
Professional
Finally a guy with realistic opinion!! Beware the *******s though. They'll desperately attack you if you offend their god. They'll even use Nadal as a shield if necessary.
Trollworld isn't the only one in this thread to insinuate that the Fed fans are overestimating Nadal. Sure he has 4 (consecutive) FO's to Borg's 6 total. He is also still very young. Furthermore, have these Samprastards forgotten that Nadal actually WAS "unbeatable" on clay for more than two years between '05 and '07 when he won 81 bloody matches in a row on the red stuff? What was Borg's longest win streak?
This guy is a clay court legend, period. And if you don't buy into the idea that he's a possible COAT...wait a few years.
federerfanatic
Banned
Man!! These ******* excuses just keep getting longer and longer!!! I don't have time to read these long excuses. Please shorten your excuse next time.
I did not list excuses. I listed examples of how using 1 match as the whole basis of your argument is badly flawed. The fact you respond with merely a short reply of taunting and name calling pretty much confirms you realize this too, as you could not even address any of the many examples based on facts and match results I gave of this, so thanks for proving my point.
By the way learn the definition of an excuse. You will find yourself always lost and confused without even a basic grasp of the English language.
federerfanatic
Banned
Here is where you are wrong atleast regarding Courier. Muster was Courier's lapdog on all surfaces. They played twice at the French and Courier pretty much ***** Muster. Muster didnt even have a chance to win the French until Courier was clearly past his prime in 1995. Muster padded his stats of clay court titles by playing alot of smallish events with weak fields, it doesnt make him bigger on clay than his contemporaries who did not. 1995 and 1996 are the only years he was legitimately winning alot of the bigger clay court events with deeper fields.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
I did not list excuses. I listed examples of how using 1 match as the whole basis of your argument is badly flawed. The fact you respond with merely a short reply of taunting and name calling pretty much confirms you realize this too, as you could not even address any of the many examples based on facts and match results I gave of this, so thanks for proving my point.
Like I said. I don't read long excuses from obvious *******s. Your name explains it all that you are indeed a *******. Explaining the truth to ******* is the same as talking to a tree. Now, if you change your user name, then I might... just might take you seriously.
egn
Hall of Fame
Okay your point single match ups? Second of all since when is losing 4 sets getting *****. Third of all Thomas Muster won the same ammount of master series on clay as Courier over the 90-94 period and is it Muster's fault that Courier was a one trick pony and couldn't hold up for more than 4 years.
Oh and most of all learn your facts Courier leads h2h 7-5 that is far from being his lapdog.
Last edited:
