Is Federer the 2nd greatest claycourter of all time?
- Thread starter cephas
- Start date
ksbh
Banned
Intriguing question. Based on achievement, not even close. With not one French Open title, maybe top 10 at best.
But remove Nadal from the equation and Federer is perhaps top 3 clay courters of all time! Federer is unlucky to be playing in the Nadal era. Without Nadal, not only would he have many French Open titles now but also a 6th Wimbledon title and would have been on track to match/beat the consecutive year end No. 1 record.
But remove Nadal from the equation and Federer is perhaps top 3 clay courters of all time! Federer is unlucky to be playing in the Nadal era. Without Nadal, not only would he have many French Open titles now but also a 6th Wimbledon title and would have been on track to match/beat the consecutive year end No. 1 record.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
are you conquistador? you must be...:twisted:
jelle v
Hall of Fame
As much as I am a Federer-fan: NO
I only started watching tennis in the early 90's, but from that point on I can name a few players already that were better claycourters than Federer.
Kuerten
Bruguera
Muster
to name a few.
Federer's backhand down the line just simply isn't consistent/good enough to be a really good claycourter.
I only started watching tennis in the early 90's, but from that point on I can name a few players already that were better claycourters than Federer.
Kuerten
Bruguera
Muster
to name a few.
Federer's backhand down the line just simply isn't consistent/good enough to be a really good claycourter.
i guess my question would be... would Fed have passed all of the former champs accomplishments if he wasnt playing against arguably the greatest clay courter ever in Nadal.
jelle v
Hall of Fame
So you think Andre Agassi and Jim Courier were better claycourters than Federer..??? :-?
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Federer is better than some former French Open champs, but he's not even close to being the second greatest clay courter ever. The second greatest clay courter would have a real rivalty against Nadal on clay, but a good clay courter like Federer will only get destroyed by Nadal on clay 90% of the time.
Blade0324
Hall of Fame
I would argue, yes they are.
jelle v
Hall of Fame
Probably Federer would have had 3 French Opens if Nadal hadn't been around. That being said, the claycourt field nowadays is that strong anymore as it was in the 90's. True gravelplayers seem to have disappeared and everbody seems to hae gone to an allcourt game. the exception offcourse being Nadal, who has a gravelgame that (with a little adaption) actually works on hardcourt.So even if Federer would have won 3 French Opens, in my opinion he wouldn't have been the greatest gravelplayer or one of the greatest gravelplayers ever. I think in my book, he would make it just inside the top 10 or so.
jelle v
Hall of Fame
I would argue no, too bad we will never know. But in my opinion Federer would defeat the both of them fairly easily.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Disagree that Agassi was better on clay than Fed but Courier at his peak probably was(although Fed would obviously have his chances against him).
Michael Bluth
Semi-Pro
Don't forget, without Nadal he'd have a lot more Masters Shields on clay as well.
In 08 he was in bad form so Djokovic would have taken him out without Nadal but in 05 he would have beaten Puerta had he advanced to the final and in 06 and 07 he would have won handily over anyone other than Nadal.
Also he would have won his sixth straight Wimbledon: but even I wouldn't trade that great match which ended in his loss for a Federer win which would have been a straight sets annihilation of either Andy Murray, Rainer Schuettler, Gulbis or whoever made it to the final. That would have been boring.
Tennis without Nadal and just Federer would have been very boring from 04-06, with Federer having no real rival until the rise of Djokovic in 07 would have produced one.
In 08 he was in bad form so Djokovic would have taken him out without Nadal but in 05 he would have beaten Puerta had he advanced to the final and in 06 and 07 he would have won handily over anyone other than Nadal.
Also he would have won his sixth straight Wimbledon: but even I wouldn't trade that great match which ended in his loss for a Federer win which would have been a straight sets annihilation of either Andy Murray, Rainer Schuettler, Gulbis or whoever made it to the final. That would have been boring.
Tennis without Nadal and just Federer would have been very boring from 04-06, with Federer having no real rival until the rise of Djokovic in 07 would have produced one.
Not even close. 2nd best clay courter of all time? First you are assuming Nadal as the greatest of all time on clay. That is not a given. Names not previously mentioned include Manuel Santana, Cliff Richey, Manuel orantes. Federer with 0 French Opens? Good on clay but not great.
BallzofSkill
Semi-Pro
As a federer fan, i'd say no. He hasn't won a fo title. Even if nadal is on the other side of the net, fed still needs to beat him.
wangs78
Legend
Fed would be 17-0 in GS finals if not for Nadal. His aura of invincibility would have been so intimidating that I think he would have been even more successful than if you were to just add back his losses to Nadal. Other players would have simply wilted to walk onto the same court with him. But without Nadal the argument that Fed played in a weak area would be more convincing, whereas with Nadal in the picture, Fed's GS wins in the last few years are much more credible.
Disagree, I think he's a far more accomplished claycourt player than guys like Coria, Moya, Ferrero, Corretja, Chang, Agassi.. I think he'd be top 10 probably. But not much higher.
care to show us 20 players that are better than Federer on clay?
3 F at RG, 1 SF, lost to Nadal, who arguably is the best clay court player.
4 MS shields on clay, only behind Nadal and Muster.
4 finals at MC and Rome lost to Nadal(check the best clay court player part) and 1 to Mantilla.
If it hadn't been for Nadal, Federer would certainly be top 3 all time clay court players.
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
Wrong. You can't tell because he may have lost in the final to someone else. He's not even in the top 10. Hence the big fat ZERO at GS slam level.
Yes. And also Andy Roddick is the second greatest grass court player of all time.
no... Sampras holds that title
ksbh
Banned
Federer is 29-5 at Hamburg - 4 titles, 1 final(lost only to Nadal in his prime)
20-8 at MC. 3 finals, lost only to Gasquet and Nadal in his prime
16-8 at Rome, 2 finals, lost to Stepanek, Volandri, Nadal and COsta in his prime.
32-10 at RG, 3 finals, SF, QF lost only to GUGA and Nadal in his prime.
Even with 2 RG, around 7-8 MS on clay, he'd be considered second to Borg if it hadn't been for Nadal.
The only player he has negative h2h on clay is Nadal.
I think he has a pretty fair shot of having 4 RG's, don't you think?
Also, would you list 10 players better than Federer on clay?
Even GUGA, who is considered one of the best on clay has gone only 2 times further than 4th round at RG - 2 QF's(other than his 3 titles). He had to beat Corretja and Norman in 2 of his finals, not exactly great players aren't they?
Don't get me wrong, Guga is on of the greats on clay, but you should have in mind what has Federer achieved too.
CyBorg
Legend
This is off the top of my head, so I may forget a name or two.
(in no particular order) Borg, Cochet, Rosewall, Lendl, Nadal, Kuerten, Trabert, Segura, Wilander, Bruguera, Vilas, Muster, Von Cramm, Lacoste, Courier, Ferrero, Laver, Nastase, Santana, Nusslein, Budge, Gimeno...
That's 22 names and I can probably name more.
On a second thought, Federer probably wouldn't crack my top 30 on clay.
CyBorg
Legend
Not just a zero in RG. Zero at the next two important events as well - Monte Carlo and Rome.
Borg - ok.
Cochet, Lacoste - hardly enough competition in the 20's. Closed to pro players, Von Cramm - weak competition again.
Lendl, Nadal, Kuerten - ok.
Rosewall, Segura, Trabert, Santana, Nuslein, Budge, Gimeno, Laver... Divided
in their pro/amateur status.
In other words, lets compare the Open era players, as it's easier.
Nada,Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten - give you that.
Muster, Ferrero, Bruguera, Villas, Courier.
Villas has 1 title - Borg was not playing that year, and he won it against Gottfried.(won his US open, played on clay that year against Connors, who isn't great on clay either. In other words, if Nadal doesn't play at RG, I'm sure who's going to be #1 favourite).
Bruguera - 3 finals(total), won against COurier and Berasategui. Only 2 MS on clay.
Muster - 1 title, def. Chang, no other final at RG. 7 MS on clay.
Courier - 2 MS on clay, alike Bruguera - 3 finals, 2 titles, beat Agassi and Korda.
Ferrero? 2 finals, 1 win against Verkerk, 0-3 against Federer on clay, hadn't taken set off him.
Do you really think Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Ferrero have a bigger chance to beat prime Nadal at RG?
So top 6 clay courter in open era(so far) is a fair shot.
So Hamburg is not an important event eh? Maybe because he won it 4 times?
Also, ZERO chance? That's where you guys lose credibility. So when Federer plays Wawrinka, GOnzalez or Coria(all who played finals at clay MS events) he has a zero chance? Utter joke.
LOL.. Fed would smoke everyone of those guys on clay. Are you even serious> Bruguera, please ok.
cknobman
Legend
Lets all just spit names out of our @ss. Only a handfull of names you mentioned even deserve to be considered great on clay.
thalivest
Banned
It is hard to say with some of those. Muster and Courier at their two year peak were superior to Federer on clay, but Federer looks like he is going to keep his peak on clay so much longer, which still means most years he would beat them most times on clay even though losing to them at their brief 2 year peaks. I would favor Courier of 1992 or 1993 over Federer on clay for sure. 1994, 1995, 1996, or any other year I highly doubt it. Similar with Muster. I would only favor the 1995 and 1996 Muster over Federer on clay, any other year definitely not.
thalivest
Banned
I definitely rate Kuerten over Federer on clay, however as a way to guage his standard on clay a one match sample is a ridiculous barometer. Just over two years before that Federer beat Kuerten on clay with a breadstick in the final set when neither were in their primes, and Federer was the lower ranked of the two. If Kuerten had lost to Michael Russel in straight sets in their only match, which he was one point away from doing, would that be a good barometer of his level on clay.
gj011
Banned
You mean like OP. Name Roger Federer is one of those names that does not deserve to be considered great on clay.
Courier beat only 2 top ten players on clay in 92. S&V-ers Korda and Ivanisevic at RG. He lost to Perez #157, Rosset #44 at the Olympics, Larsson in the Davis Cup. So really he won the RG and Rome, without beating a top ten player and lost to inferior ones that year.
In 93 he was beaten by Bruguera at RG, and beat him in Rome. That's about all clay tournaments he played that year.
In 91, considered one of his best years he lost to De La Pena#57 in Hamburg(1st round),Cherkasov #18 in Rome in 3rd round, battled at RG against Larsson #46 when he was 2-1 down, and again he was 2-1 down in the final against Agassi.
His latter years are weaker to those. So yes, Federer would definitely have a fair shot against Courier.
thalivest
Banned
Korda was not a S&Ver. You obviously have never seen him play. Regardless who he beat Courier's level on clay in 1992 and 1993 was simply higher then Federer's. That is obvious just watching. He didnt sustain his top level on clay for nearly as long as Federer, but the top level he did reach was alot higher. Anyway Federer hasnt beaten anyone great at the French Open either.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Bruguera at his best was a great claycourter and I'm a Fed fan so I'm definitely not biased against him.IMO those players at their peak were better claycourters than Fed(obviously thier peaks were very short,claycourters aren't known for their longevity).Regardles,I do believe that Fed would end up with several FOs in the 90s as there wasn't anyone nearly as dominant as Nadal on that surface(not even close)and Fed IMO is a better claycourter than guys like Kafelnikov or Agassi who won it in the 90s.
Laver could be considered the first,3 of 4 slams were on grass in his days.
jelle v
Hall of Fame
Bruguera and Muster most certainly YES.. I shouldn't even have to argue that.. common sense should be enough..
thalivest
Banned
I think something like:
Bruguera at his peak, Muster at his peak, Courier at his peak, Kuerten > Federer on clay
Federer on clay > Moya and Kafelnikov
Federer on clay = Ferrero and Agassi (I dont see much difference here)
So yes hard to see Federer not winning a French Open at some point, probably more then one but not in a year one of the truly superior clay courters was at their best. As you say the best clay courters of the 90s all had very short peaks though, and Federer would beat all of them most times when not in their peaks.
Last edited:
My bad, missed a comma there, with S&V-ers meant Stich, Edberg, Krajicek, Sampras(all those high ranked players he beat during the years) and players like Korda, Ivanisevic(in 92 he played a mixture of S&V and aggressive baseliner), etc. And each time he met a typical clay courter (minus Muster in 92, 93 when Muster wasn't in his prime) he faded away.
It's not like that - regardless who he beat. Bear in mind, Moya, Costa, Gaudio, Chang, all won RG, are they better players than Federer on clay?
Not to mention Federer's career is far from over. However I do believe Federer has what it takes to beat Courier on clay. He didn't have Nadal to deal with in his slam titles, nor even player like GUGA. RG champions at the time were really inconsistent, bar Bruguera, who was owned by Muster though.
In other words, if you take Federer ten years back, he'd have the number of Courier slams at RG or better, however Courier now, I can't see beating Nadal on clay. No way, no how.
gj011
Banned
If you take Federer 10 years back he wouldn't dominate on grass and hadcourts and would not have 5+5 consecutive in Wimbledon and USO with Sampras and Agassi around. So all these "what ifs" are moot point and useless comparisons.
This whole thread is silly.
thalivest
Banned
It is all speculation of course. I suspect Federer would do quite well vs Agassi even in Agassi's good years, and Agassi was largely absent the majority of typical players "prime" age years anyway. Sampras is another story entirely however.
Federer's best and most dominant slam in the 90s might have been Australian Open. Agassi didnt start his dominance there until the year he turned 30 in 2000 and Sampras was never remotedly dominant there. At Wimbledon and the U.S Open he would have a hard time with Sampras IMO so while he would win at each he would never be dominant like he is now, and at the French he would have a better shot to win at the French Open but he certainly would never dominate there either.
Similar threads
- Poll
- NadalAgassi
- General Pro Player Discussion
