Augustus
Hall of Fame
Oh I see. The op should be more clear in his initial post b/c it raised the question right away when many other greats are left out.![]()
Yeah, the thread title should gave made clear it's about one-time French Open winners.
Oh I see. The op should be more clear in his initial post b/c it raised the question right away when many other greats are left out.![]()
Oh I see. The op should be more clear in his initial post b/c it raised the question right away when many other greats are left out.![]()
Yeah, the thread title should gave made clear it's about one-time French Open winners.
LOL based on what? Winning only 1 Roland Garros, 0 Rome titles, and 0 Monte Carlo titles. Sorry I guess it is all those Hamburg and Estoril victories, the stuff clay court legends are made of.
Seriously, you are clown! It isn't about just one FO, but Roger consistently making to the finals. In fact, Roger made 5 straight semi, something even Nadal(clay goat) haven't done in this era. Fine if you don't want to give any credits to Roger, but don't be a smart-ass by simply bringing up Rome or MC but ignore everything else. Shut up!!!
Seriously, you are clown! It isn't about just one FO, but Roger consistently making to the finals. In fact, Roger made 5 straight semi, something even Nadal(clay goat) haven't done in this era. Fine if you don't want to give any credits to Roger, but don't be a smart-ass by simply bringing up Rome or MC but ignore everything else. Shut up!!!
There are many clay courters on that list who have achieved more than 1 French Open title and 1 Madrid title.
those are the biggest things he has achieved on clay yes. So his biggest claim to greatness on clay is winning Hamburg and Estoril alot.
Roger Federer's career on clay
- French Open: WON 2009; runner-up 2006, 2007, 2008; SF 2008.
- Monte Carlo: runner-up 2006, 2007, 2008.
- Rome: runner-up 2003, 2006.
- Hamburg: WON 2002, 2004, 2005.
- Madrid: WON 2009.
- Other clay titles: Munich 2003, Gstaad 2004, Estoril.
Not bad.
Yeah, the thread title should gave made clear it's about one-time French Open winners.
Actually should also add: Hamburg WON 2007, Hamburg Final 2008.
Yes I have heard that excuse for the 1000th time only already. If one says "if Nadal wasnt there" I could say what if the overall clay court field wasnt such a joke during much of Federer's success there.
There are many clay courters on that list who have achieved more than 1 French Open title and 1 Madrid title.
Ranking these guys as far as clay court prowess is very tough. They are all one-time French Open Champions. Keep in mind that if we give Federer "extra credit" for losing to an all-time great such as Nadal, a guy like Vilas should get some benefit for having to face Borg during Borg's reign. Vilas dropped 2 finals at the FO to Borg and 1 more to Wilander in 1982 (3 FO finals, 1 FO title).
Now, Agassi, also has 2 FO finals he lost, but he lost to Gomez and Courier (also really good clay courters, but not at Nadal's level).
Since all these guys have 1 FO title, I've listed total number of total clay court titles as a preliminary "tiebreaker". Looking at the list of players, ranked by total number of clay court titles, I'd put Federer at about 5 on the list, after giving him some extra credit since he plays in Nadal's era. He is still pretty far behind a few of the other guys in terms of total clay court titles.
These guys at the top should get credit for winning many clay court titles, besides just the 1 FO title. So, I wouldn't rank them behind Federer just because they played in "earlier years". Will a 1 time FO champion in say 10 years NECESSARILY be better than Federer because of "natural evolution" of the Sport? I wouldn't think so. On a given day, Federer is quite dangerous on clay, but his results are not better than many great clay courters.
It depends on what you want to emphasize. Just like any comparison between players of different eras, this is a subjective and objective analysis. If a Federer fan wants to place Federer at the top of the list, he/she needs to give some reason as to why.
Just because he is a "current" player is not enough in my opinion. Will players 10 years from now "automatically" be better than the guys at the top today? Not necessarily, in my opinion, but there will likely be changes to how the Game is being played at the highest level, driven by changing techniques, playing style, technology, and the sheer competition among the top guys.
Here's my list with just these players involved. Let's remember that guys like Courier and Bruguera have 2 FO titles and are not on this list at all.
1. Guillermo Vilas - 46
2. Thomas Muster - 40
3. Ilie Nastase - 28
4. Carlos Moya - 16
5. Roger Federer - 9
6. Andres Gomez - 16
7. Albert Costa - 13
8. Yannick Noah - 12
9. Juan Carlos Ferrero - 11
10. Adriano Panatta - 8
11. Gaston Gaudio - 8
12. Andre Agassi - 7
13. Michael Chang - 5
14. Yevgeny Kafelnikov - 4
15. Andres Gimeno - 3
I'm just going to rate according to what I "feel" about their claycourtgame, not their results... and I'm just going to rate the players I know/saw play. Sorry, I don't know the older players. i only know them from name and it would make no sense if i included them on this list, because it would be based on nothing.
1) Thomas Muster
2) Juan Carlos Ferrero
3) Albert Costa
4) Roger Federer
5) Gaston Gaudio (if only he hadn't been such a headcase)
6) Carlos Moya (I never thought highly of him, sorry)
7) Michael Chang
8) Andre Agassi
9) Yevgeni Kafelnikov
What made you rank Costa over Federer? Just curious...
Ranking these guys as far as clay court prowess is very tough. They are all one-time French Open Champions. Keep in mind that if we give Federer "extra credit" for losing to an all-time great such as Nadal, a guy like Vilas should get some benefit for having to face Borg during Borg's reign. Vilas dropped 2 finals at the FO to Borg and 1 more to Wilander in 1982 (3 FO finals, 1 FO title).
Now, Agassi, also has 2 FO finals he lost, but he lost to Gomez and Courier (also really good clay courters, but not at Nadal's level).
Since all these guys have 1 FO title, I've listed total number of total clay court titles as a preliminary "tiebreaker". Looking at the list of players, ranked by total number of clay court titles, I'd put Federer at about 5 on the list, after giving him some extra credit since he plays in Nadal's era. He is still pretty far behind a few of the other guys in terms of total clay court titles.
These guys at the top should get credit for winning many clay court titles, besides just the 1 FO title. So, I wouldn't rank them behind Federer just because they played in "earlier years". Will a 1 time FO champion in say 10 years NECESSARILY be better than Federer because of "natural evolution" of the Sport? I wouldn't think so. On a given day, Federer is quite dangerous on clay, but his results are not better than many great clay courters.
It depends on what you want to emphasize. Just like any comparison between players of different eras, this is a subjective and objective analysis. If a Federer fan wants to place Federer at the top of the list, he/she needs to give some reason as to why.
Just because he is a "current" player is not enough in my opinion. Will players 10 years from now "automatically" be better than the guys at the top today? Not necessarily, in my opinion, but there will likely be changes to how the Game is being played at the highest level, driven by changing techniques, playing style, technology, and the sheer competition among the top guys.
Here's my list with just these players involved. Let's remember that guys like Courier and Bruguera have 2 FO titles and are not on this list at all.
1. Guillermo Vilas - 46
2. Thomas Muster - 40
3. Ilie Nastase - 28
4. Carlos Moya - 16
5. Roger Federer - 9
6. Andres Gomez - 16
7. Albert Costa - 13
8. Yannick Noah - 12
9. Juan Carlos Ferrero - 11
10. Adriano Panatta - 8
11. Gaston Gaudio - 8
12. Andre Agassi - 7
13. Michael Chang - 5
14. Yevgeny Kafelnikov - 4
15. Andres Gimeno - 3
Borg #1,
Love these links and history. If you have any of the players just hanging out or practicing. I like to see what these players personalities are. Behind the scenes stuff like before and after matches and practicing and interviews.
Can watch this stuff all day.
Sorry but no way Moya is better than Federer on clay. In fact thinking he is, is a true joke. Ferrero is also clearly better than Moya on clay, and way better than Gomez, Costa, and Noah too. Gaudio above Agassi!?! If that is a ranking list you did a terrible job.
He did have a fairly easy time winning the FO, and to be honest his draw overall was much stronger than Federer's (which consisted of Haas, Del Potro, Soderling in the later rounds). Moya played Mantilla, Rios, and Corretja in the later rounds. I would say Rios and Corretja are both better claycourt players than Haas and Soderling. He also eliminated Corretja, Pioline, Kafelnikov, and Kraicjek all who are very capable players at Monte Carlo.
His consistency isn't there, but if we're comparing peak to peak performances it's actually not a long shot to say Moya could probably give Federer a run for his money, especially when 30 something year old Moya took prime Federer to the brink at Hamburg in 2007.
Me too. I'm glad you like those. I love that tennis stuff. We see a bit of the person behind the persona.
Moya is 0-7 vs Federer overall and in 2004 when he was having one of his best clay court seasons ever he got spanked by Federer when played. He also got spanked the next year when he played Federer at the French in 2005, although 2004 was probably his last "prime" year but in any case it is clear Federer has the big edge even if you want to get into head to head. The main issue at hand though is not a head to head summary, but that Moya only made it past the quarters of the French Open only once, and this certainly wasnt due to too much competition when one runs over his losses. He has also won only 2 Masters titles on clay his long career, and again this had nothing to do with competition but alot of inconsistency and inability to often beat any noteworthy competition. Prime Federer would never lose to guys like Albert Portas, Martin Verkerk, Guillermo Canas, and others Moya lost to at the French during some of the best years of his career, or atleast not that many times. Prime Federer >>> Prime Moya on any surface.
Yeah I do agree Moya had a tougher draw to his FO title than Federer in 2009 but Federer of 2005-2007 would have had no problem at all winning the FO with Moya's 98 draw still especialy with Corretja playing as if he were showing up for a wedding rather than a tennis match.
Sorry but no way Moya is better than Federer on clay. In fact thinking he is, is a true joke. Ferrero is also clearly better than Moya on clay, and way better than Gomez, Costa, and Noah too. Gaudio above Agassi!?! If that is a ranking list you did a terrible job.
I watched Moya many times at his best including when he won Roland Garros. I didnt think he was unbelievably good even when he won. He benefited from extreme underperformances from both Rios and Corretja (McEnroe announcing at the time said the same thing). As for Mantilla he is good but that isnt exactly the toughest opponent and it was still a tough 4 setter. If he was that good he would have made another semifinal at the French atleast which he couldnt do even with some cushy draws.
What is with ranking Moya 3rd and Ferrero 9th? Do you really believe the Moya of the 98 French would have ever beaten the Ferrero of the 2003 French.
I dont think overall clay court titles is a good barometer since many of those guys like Vilas, Muster, and Moya play alot of Mickey Mouse type events to pad their stats. In the case of Moya he won Umag 5 times, Bueno Aires three times, Chennai twice, Acapulco twice, Bastad, you get the picture. He is certainly not better than Federer or Ferrero based on winning events like that when he cant fare nearly as well at the French Open and the Masters events with everyone there.
Ferrero was Kuerten's biggest rival by far on clay in 2001 and clearly considered the best clay courter in the World in 02 and 03. He was a minor underperformer at the French with a dissapointing performance vs Kuerten in the 01 FO semis, and a choke in the 2002 final. However no way would Gomez, Noah, Costa, and certainly not Moya have been in that role as the dominant 1 or 2 clay courters in the World for 3 years if they played then or any other point in time.
Moya was really playing well in 1998-1999 (when he got to #1). He came on the scene in 1997, and quickly took a French Title. He dropped off quite a bit after his back injury in late 1999 when he injured his back. When he won the French in 1998, he beat Grosjean in the first round (quite tough on clay at the FO), along with Rios and Mantilla later in the draw. He lost in the 1999 FO to Agassi, who played quite tough that match. He lost in the first round of the FO in 2000. For him to be top 2 on clay for 3 years would not be too far fetched.
Now after Federer started really emerging (2003-2004), Moya was likely NOT the player he was through 1999. He did get beaten badly by Federer at the FO in 2005, but Moya from 1998-1999 was likely quite a bit tougher on clay than Moya by 2005. Moya started getting really hot in 1998, and reached #1 in 1999. His back injury pushed his ranking up in 2000, but he did well in 2001-2002. Yet, by 2003, his ranking was in sharp decline. He finished 2007 ranked #17 with a strong year, but he was consistently ranked about 30-40 after 2004. So once Federer got really good (2004-2005), Moya was not the same player he was in 1999 when he took the FO title.
Anyway, I can see the justification for ranking Federer ahead of Moya on the clay list, since he won handily at the FO in 2005 against him. Yet, I think a 1999 Moya would likely have been tougher to handle and was capable of beating Federer on clay.
The most prestigious and important clay court event is the French Open, followed by Rome and Monte Carlo. What is so shocking about that news? That is the way it has been for decades.
Ranking these guys as far as clay court prowess is very tough. They are all one-time French Open Champions. Keep in mind that if we give Federer "extra credit" for losing to an all-time great such as Nadal, a guy like Vilas should get some benefit for having to face Borg during Borg's reign. Vilas dropped 2 finals at the FO to Borg and 1 more to Wilander in 1982 (3 FO finals, 1 FO title).
Now, Agassi, also has 2 FO finals he lost, but he lost to Gomez and Courier (also really good clay courters, but not at Nadal's level).
Since all these guys have 1 FO title, I've listed total number of total clay court titles as a preliminary "tiebreaker". Looking at the list of players, ranked by total number of clay court titles, I'd put Federer at about 5 on the list, after giving him some extra credit since he plays in Nadal's era. He is still pretty far behind a few of the other guys in terms of total clay court titles.
These guys at the top should get credit for winning many clay court titles, besides just the 1 FO title. So, I wouldn't rank them behind Federer just because they played in "earlier years". Will a 1 time FO champion in say 10 years NECESSARILY be better than Federer because of "natural evolution" of the Sport? I wouldn't think so. On a given day, Federer is quite dangerous on clay, but his results are not better than many great clay courters.
It depends on what you want to emphasize. Just like any comparison between players of different eras, this is a subjective and objective analysis. If a Federer fan wants to place Federer at the top of the list, he/she needs to give some reason as to why.
Just because he is a "current" player is not enough in my opinion. Will players 10 years from now "automatically" be better than the guys at the top today? Not necessarily, in my opinion, but there will likely be changes to how the Game is being played at the highest level, driven by changing techniques, playing style, technology, and the sheer competition among the top guys.
Here's my list with just these players involved. Let's remember that guys like Courier and Bruguera have 2 FO titles and are not on this list at all.
1. Guillermo Vilas - 46
2. Thomas Muster - 40
3. Ilie Nastase - 28
4. Carlos Moya - 16
5. Roger Federer - 9
6. Andres Gomez - 16
7. Albert Costa - 13
8. Yannick Noah - 12
9. Juan Carlos Ferrero - 11
10. Adriano Panatta - 8
11. Gaston Gaudio - 8
12. Andre Agassi - 7
13. Michael Chang - 5
14. Yevgeny Kafelnikov - 4
15. Andres Gimeno - 3
Moya in 2004 had one of his best years ever. He ended it ranked #5 in the World I believe, he won Rome which is 1 of the only 2 Masters titles he ever won, and he was one of the favorities at the French this year. Moya of 2004 was basically no different from 1998 or 1999. Moya also lost the first ever match he played against Federer when Federer was only 17 and weeks before Moya became #1 for the only time of his career, even though that was on hard courts. There is nothing anything could say that would convince me Moya is a better player than Federer on any surface.
Anyway your worst ranking of all was not of Federer, it was of course Moya, and even more of Ferrero. You still havent addressed your ranking of Ferrero or how on earth you could ever conclude Ferrero would be 6 spots lower than Moya on clay, let alone below all those others you had him below. Ferrero is in fact clearly a superior clay courter to Moya, let alone a much weaker one. Ferrero's ranking especialy compared to Moya was inexplicable and I would like to see you even begin to try and justify it. Are you even half aware of Ferrero's clay court resume at the French and Masters events vs Moya. Have you ever actually seen the two of them play each other, especialy on clay. Ferrero at his best would beat Moya at his best almost everytime on clay, I have no doubt about that. Ferrero at his best is also one of the dominant clay courters, Moya at his best is not and never was.
PS- Moya ever reaching #1 just shows what a weak field it was around them, far weaker than the current field you like to say is weak. Could anyone imagine Moya at his peak overall ever ranking higher than maybe #5 today (I doubt he could even be that high).
while it's a great list, I'd use slightly different criteria -- performance at the most important tournaments. Muster & Co amassed a lot of titles at mickey-mouse tournaments, where the field wasn't deep. If # of clay titles is the criteria applied here, they why not extend the same to determine who was the best CC of all time? The reason is simple: all tournaments are not the same, and there is a reason for the hierarchy.
Federer certainly has a much better resume at the most important tournaments (FO, master's series) than moya & muster. IMO, he is certainly #2 on that list (and possibly #1, I'd have to look up Vilas' CC resume to compare). Plus neither muster nor moya played alongside someone ranked in the top 3 of all time on clay.
Moya had a terrible 2005 overall, so what he did in 2004 is not as relevant. He did do quite well in 2001-2004, after recovering from his back injury. I know you keep saying he wasn't THAT good in 1998, and that the field was just shallow back then, but Agassi played really well to take him out in 1999 on the way to the title. Anyway, I have seen both Ferrerro and Moya play many, many times. They are both excellent clay court players, as are most all the FO title holders. You act like there are HUGE differences between these guys on clay, Moya, Ferrero, and Federer. If one is better at his peak than the other two on clay, it's debatable.
I dont think overall clay court titles is a good barometer since many of those guys like Vilas, Muster, and Moya play alot of Mickey Mouse type events to pad their stats. In the case of Moya he won Umag 5 times, Bueno Aires three times, Chennai twice, Acapulco twice, Bastad, you get the picture. He is certainly not better than Federer or Ferrero based on winning events like that when he cant fare nearly as well at the French Open and the Masters events with everyone there.
Anyway here is my list of those guys in order:
1. Thomas Muster- at his best on clay he was better than Federer or Vilas and would beat either of them I believe.
2. Roger Federer- I still think this thread is a joke in that it is an excuse to unfairly buff Federer up by elminating all multi French Open winners of the Open Era which is stupid. Anyway Muster or Ferrero at their best beat Federer at his best on clay I think, Federer probably had the best overall career though. I split the difference.
3. Juan Carlos Ferrero- at his best I think he was better than Federer on clay but he didnt have the longevity due to injury.
4. Guillermo Vilas- great clay courter but he was even more useless vs Borg on clay than Federer was vs Nadal, by quite a bit actually. The upset French Open final loss to a 17 year old Wilander does not help him either.
5. Ilie Nastase- was great when he had his head screwed on right.
6. Adriana Panatta- I give him brownie points for beating Borg during his dominance to win the French, and being the only one who really gave Borg a tough time on clay (albeit largely due to matchup I suspect).
7. Andres Gimeno- not that different a level at the time from Nastase or Kodes.
8. Albert Costa- he was a very good performer in Masters and regular clay court events back in his prime. Finally put it together at the French past his prime.
9. Andre Agassi- I give him credit for his French Open record, but in many ways I dont think he is that outstanding or natural a clay court player.
10. Andres Gomez- he was a better clay courter than he was credited for, I agree there. Without Lendl all those years who knows.
11. Yannick Noah- Just because the string of players he beats for his French Open title was very impressive, even if his overall career wasnt as much.
12. Carlos Moya- pretty good performer on clay and at the French for years but rarely ever great. A bunch of Umag titles does not get you a high ranking for me.
13. Michael Chang- he did make it back to another French Open final, but his overall clay record does not have too much to distinguish it.
14. Yevgeny Kafelnikov- he was Kuerten's toughest opponent at the French for awhile which is admirable, and did win a French, but other than that there is little that distinguishes him as a great clay courter.
15. Gaston Gaudio- a fluke, nothing more.
I sort of think Federer is a beneficiary of his time. I dont think he would be rated as great a clay courter as he is if he were born in another time. People focus on Nadal but the depth on clay most of the last 5 years is really shallow and Federer has capatilized on that . Federer is still a great clay courter of course, but Kuerten in 2004 really exposed many of Federer's shortcomings on clay. I agree that Muster and Vilas especialy would be very tough matchups for Federer on the dirt. I dont think we would be rating Federer so high up on the list, maybe even out of the top 5 of this group if he were born in another era, as while he could still win a French (maybe more than 1 depending) he also wouldnt be making every single clay court final like he was awhile today. I basically acknowledged his record to put him that high but couldnt bring myself to put him over Muster who was so much more a monster at his 95-96 peak than Federer ever was on clay.
Federer is still a great clay courter of course, but Kuerten in 2004 really exposed many of Federer's shortcomings on clay.
Moya doesn't stand a chance against Federer on any surface. The result can be close when Moya plays well and Federer doesn't but that's about it.Moya was really playing well in 1998-1999 (when he got to #1). He came on the scene in 1997, and quickly took a French Title. He dropped off quite a bit after his back injury in late 1999 when he injured his back. When he won the French in 1998, he beat Grosjean in the first round (quite tough on clay at the FO), along with Rios and Mantilla later in the draw. He lost in the 1999 FO to Agassi, who played quite tough that match. He lost in the first round of the FO in 2000. For him to be top 2 on clay for 3 years would not be too far fetched.
Now after Federer started really emerging (2003-2004), Moya was likely NOT the player he was through 1999. He did get beaten badly by Federer at the FO in 2005, but Moya from 1998-1999 was likely quite a bit tougher on clay than Moya by 2005. Moya started getting really hot in 1998, and reached #1 in 1999. His back injury pushed his ranking up in 2000, but he did well in 2001-2002. Yet, by 2003, his ranking was in sharp decline. He finished 2007 ranked #17 with a strong year, but he was consistently ranked about 30-40 after 2004. So once Federer got really good (2004-2005), Moya was not the same player he was in 1999 when he took the FO title.
Anyway, I can see the justification for ranking Federer ahead of Moya on the clay list, since he won handily at the FO in 2005 against him. Yet, I think a 1999 Moya would likely have been tougher to handle and was capable of beating Federer on clay.
I just remembered prime Berastegui. That guy was tough and I recall that he had some massive topspin on his forehand. Yet, he won the FO twice unlike the players on the list. He's another guy that would have troubled Federer, Ferrero, and perhaps even Nadal some. I thought it would be fun to see some pics of these 15 on clay. When thinking about comparing them out there, sometimes pictures can do the trick. Pictures to follow...
I just remembered prime Berastegui. That guy was tough and I recall that he had some massive topspin on his forehand. Yet, he won the FO twice unlike the players on the list. He's another guy that would have troubled Federer, Ferrero, and perhaps even Nadal some. I thought it would be fun to see some pics of these 15 on clay. When thinking about comparing them out there, sometimes pictures can do the trick. Pictures to follow...
you are talking about bruguera, I'd assume. He was the only one I've seen hit with as much topspin consistently as nadal does ....
I sort of think Federer is a beneficiary of his time. I dont think he would be rated as great a clay courter as he is if he were born in another time. People focus on Nadal but the depth on clay most of the last 5 years is really shallow and Federer has capatilized on that . Federer is still a great clay courter of course, but Kuerten in 2004 really exposed many of Federer's shortcomings on clay. I agree that Muster and Vilas especialy would be very tough matchups for Federer on the dirt. I dont think we would be rating Federer so high up on the list, maybe even out of the top 5 of this group if he were born in another era, as while he could still win a French (maybe more than 1 depending) he also wouldnt be making every single clay court final like he was awhile today. I basically acknowledged his record to put him that high but couldnt bring myself to put him over Muster who was so much more a monster at his 95-96 peak than Federer ever was on clay.