Is Federer the 2nd greatest claycourter of all time?

[flying24]

For this reason alone, he should never be considered great claycourt player. Some here dare to compare Federer to Guga, Muster, Brugera, Agassi, Courrier, Kafelnikov, JCF, Wilander, Vilas, Lendl, even Borg, while at his prime Fed was not able to beat one Filippo Volandri.

That is dumb reasoning. Kuerten, Muster, Bruguera, Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov, Ferrero, and Moya have all lost many times to players much worse then Volandri.

 

[veroniquem]

Federer wouldn't be making many clay court finals if there was better competition.

I'll some up today's era of clay court tennis like this:

- one great clay court player
- many chumps and all-court/hardcourt types who don't really know how to play on clay

Of course Federer is making finals on clay. He doesn't meet Nadal until the final and before the final he's just playing other guys who are more incompetent on clay than he is.

But the thread says "of all time". There's no doubt he can win matches on clay. He's just not one of the greatest when you have guys like Borg, Lendl, Wilander and Kuerten in the equation. I also believe that although Borg can still be picked as the best on clay at the moment based on his 6 FO titles, Nadal will be the best by the time he retires and Borg will be #2.

 

[CyBorg]

Players still grow up playing on clay and the season clay court season is pretty long; I think it would be tough to argue that there aren't talented clay court specialist still around but I hear what you're saying.

I think a better way to look at it is in terms of the shift to western grips and larger head-sizes that make the transition from faster surfaces to modern dirt-balling much easier.

When Juan Martin del Potro, a player who doesn't even like clay very much, wins two or more clay events in the summer there's a problem.

That being said, racquet technology is definitely homogenizing the sport.

This is the way it used to be - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6CIttvDOA8 - that's five hours in the heat. Now you can hit winners from the back of the court and you've outta there in 90 minutes.

 

[CyBorg]

I also believe that although Borg can still be picked as the best on clay at the moment based on his 6 FO titles, Nadal will be the best by the time he retires and Borg will be #2.

Keep counting those chickens... errr eggs.

 

[gj011]

I think some of you overrate Federer on clay, some of you underrate him. He is definitely superior to Kafelnikov, Moya, and probably Agassi on clay in their primes. He is also below Courier, Muster, and definitely Kuerten at their very best on clay. I would say Bruguera, Ferrero, he is probably at a similar level to when they were in their primes. The thing that is impressive about him is he looks like he is going to sustain his top level on clay alot longer then all those guys, although Kuerten would have been quite long too without his injury I think.

He is definitely alot better then a Federer hater like gj011 is trying to imply he is (not in the league of Kafelnikov on clay is a ******** comment to make) but he is also also far from the 2nd best in history. He isnt even the second best of the last 20 years, let alone history. At best I would put him 3rd behind Nadal and Kuerten only due to his consistency on clay, but his top level on clay is below Muster, Courier, and possibly Bruguera and Ferrero as well. Then you go back a bit before that Lendl and Wilander are head and shoulds better. So he is anywhere from 5th to 9th best only in the last 25 years, and the farther you go the further he would drop.

Just to repeat once more that I am not a Federer hater. Unfortunately this board is completely flooded by biased Federer fans, and everyone who is not agreeing with them is marked as Federer hater.

 

[jgreen06]

i would say hes in the top five... but with no titles at RG its almost impossible to say hes #2

 

[thalivest]

Just to repeat once more that I am not a Federer hater. Unfortunately this board is completely flooded by biased Federer fans, and everyone who is not agreeing with them is marked as Federer hater.

I am one of the biggest Federer haters on the forum as my posting history would prove, yet even I find many of your comments on Federer outlandish and too harsh. Thus it is apparent you are not only a Federer hater, but an even bigger Federer hater then I am, which means quite enormously so. There is no point in trying to hide it as you havent fooled anyone.

 

[LurkingGod]

I strongly believe that Fed could win at least one FO if he played in a different era, he's that good on Clay. I don't think this era is that weak no matter what the others choose to believe.

But we can't rank a player based on just potential and fantasy so in reality Fed can't be in the top 10 let alone top 2.

 

[thalivest]

But the thread says "of all time". There's no doubt he can win matches on clay. He's just not one of the greatest when you have guys like Borg, Lendl, Wilander and Kuerten in the equation. I also believe that although Borg can still be picked as the best on clay at the moment based on his 6 FO titles, Nadal will be the best by the time he retires and Borg will be #2.

I agree with that. I also think the only guys of the last 18 years that would rank in the top 10 all time on clay are Borg, Nadal, and Kuerten (and Kuerten only barely probably). Courier, Muster, Federer, Bruguera, Ferrero, are the next best ones IMO since 1990 or so but all miss out, and immediately start dropping once we even reach as far back as Wilander and Lendl.

 

[gj011]

I am one of the biggest Federer haters on the forum as my posting history would prove, yet even I find many of your comments on Federer outlandish and too harsh. Thus it is apparent you are not only a Federer hater, but an even bigger Federer hater then I am, which means quite enormously so. There is no point in trying to hide it as you havent fooled anyone.

I am not trying to hide or fool anyone. No need for that. I am telling it like it is. I am not a Federer hater. However, I am a hater of delusional Fed crowd on this board. Just look at this thread and dozens of other thread like this one.

 

[Gaucho Behrend]

Good comedy thread.

 

[thalivest]

I am not trying to hide or fool anyone. No need for that. I am telling it like it is. I am not a Federer hater. However, I am a hater of delusional Fed crowd on this board. Just look at this thread and dozens of other thread like this one.

This thread is ridiculous. I am not denying that. Federer isnt even a top 10 clay courter all time, let alone #2, and this stupid thread should be moved to the Rants and Raves section. However saying he is automatically weaker then any clay courter who won the French once just because he lost to Volandri once is being both desperate and nuts.

 

[Chopin]

When Juan Martin del Potro, a player who doesn't even like clay very much, wins two or more clay events in the summer there's a problem.

That being said, racquet technology is definitely homogenizing the sport.

This is the way it used to be - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6CIttvDOA8 - that's five hours in the heat. Now you can hit winners from the back of the court and you've outta there in 90 minutes.

Well, to be fair, del Potro won summer clay court tournaments ("international gold series" events) and didn't even face anyone in the top 50 in one of them. And he was on a quite winning streak over the summer so I'm not convinced his results say very much about the state of clay court tennis one way or the other.

Yeah I've seen the tennis old and I still stand by my claim that today's players are athletically and technically superior as a general rule. I personally find watching vintage clay court tennis very boring in comparison to today's clay court tennis (which is generally only moderately boring ).

No there's some great stuff in the Mac video

 

[jean pierre]

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.

Connors was great on american clay : he beats Borg in 1976 US Open final !

 

[zagor]

. I am not a Federer hater.

Yes you are IMO.Nothing wrong with that,there are a lot of posters here who hate either Djokovic or Nadal or both and you're certainly not one of the worse ones but judging by your posts many people(even thalivest who while I definitely respect his posts is as far from a Fed fan as possible)would conclude that you do not just hate the Fed fans but Fed as well.Maybe you posts about Fed wouldn't be so negative if a lot of Fed fans weren't so negative towards Djokovic but that's the way it is,If you want to be diferent than that bunch(I mean the overly fanatical Fed fans,not the good ones) then don't act like them .

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Dedicated to the OP:

 

[roysid]

He probably is. But all these doesn't matter if he doesn't win French open.

 

[cknobman]

You can play on words as much as you want but you CANNOT argue that Federer is the second anything on clay (best, greatest, most skilled, smartest, coolest, badassest, take your pick). Fed may be a living god on hard (I think that's exaggerated too by the way) but on clay, he looks like a fish out of water and wouldn't even make the top 10 with players like Courier, Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera, Lendl, the megalegendary Borg and so on and so forth. So please let's stop being nonsensical here.

Check your own posts before telling someone to stop being nonsensical.
Talk about a lack of sense:-?
Fed looks like a fish out of water???:-? 3 consecutive FO finals????:-? Beat the undisputed 2nd best claycourter of all time at a MS on clay and still looks like a fish out of water???:-?

Take of your Fed hater glasses and pull your nose from Nadals butt.

Beating an out of gas Nadal (after 3 straight titles) in the least significant of the clay masters (so much so that it's not even a master anymore) ONCE doesn't make you one of the greatest clay players, sorry. He had several counterperformances on clay that had nothing to do with Nadal and yes when I see him in big finals against Nadal on clay I do feel he's uncomfortable, less confident than Djoko for example and making poor strategic choices. I also think it's getting worse and worse (only 4 games won in RG final?) but hey maybe it's just me...

Im not arguing Rogers greatness on clay per se. Im arguing your statment of how he looks like a fish out of water.

You can either:
Prove your statement(with actual facts, IE consistent poor performances, lack of achievements, etc...)
Recant your statement
Or loose all credibility as a sensible poster for making @ssinine satatements and refusing to admit your wrong.

 

[edberg505]

You can play on words as much as you want but you CANNOT argue that Federer is the second anything on clay (best, greatest, most skilled, smartest, coolest, badassest, take your pick). Fed may be a living god on hard (I think that's exaggerated too by the way) but on clay, he looks like a fish out of water and wouldn't even make the top 10 with players like Courier, Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera, Lendl, the megalegendary Borg and so on and so forth. So please let's stop being nonsensical here.

That sort of statement is kind of a disservice to Nadal. Because basically what you are saying is Nadal is playing a bunch of clay court chumps (Federer being one of those chumps) and that's why his claycourt record is what it is now. And we all know that's far from the truth because Nadal is quite possibly the greatest claycourt player to ever play the game. But how does Federer look like a fish out of water on clay when the guy has made 3 FO finals in a row.

 

[Parabolica]

I'd rank Fed as #3 all time. With his style of game not suited to the French, he still dominates every player at the FO(other than Nadal).

1-Borg
2-Nadal
3-Federer

 

[CyBorg]

Well, to be fair, del Potro won summer clay court tournaments ("international gold series" events) and didn't even face anyone in the top 50 in one of them. And he was on a quite winning streak over the summer so I'm not convinced his results say very much about the state of clay court tennis one way or the other.

That's the thing about the clay court specialist... or what was the clay court specialist. You'd often get a guy who's not ranked high, but could be a nightmare on a given day on clay.

Very few of those today and this is why Juan Martin Del Potro is winning events on clay.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

A number of months ago I create a thread, questioning whether Federer is a clay court great, perhaps 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th best in history.

Despite all the praise Federer gets, often times I don't think people are aware of his capability on Clay. Heck, many would even hesitate to call him definitively the second best clay courter of this era, which he has been for the past 4 years.

If Nadal wasn't in the picture Federer could quite possibly have 3 or 4 Roland Garros titles under his belt (taking this current years into account and the semifinal lost to nadal in 2005) as well most of those clay court master series titles where he lost to Nadal in the final.

I know among many board members a player has to actually get the titles to be considered one of the greats. But I think the problem is Federer who could be considered one of the greats is living in an era with the greatest claycourter ever.

Well if you guys refuse to agree with me about him being one of the clay greats despite his lack of victories I would at least hope that there isn't much argument he is definitely overall the best clay courter other than Nadal of this generation (also taking into account rising Djokovic).

Lets take a look at Gustavo Kuerten who is unquestioned by most of you as a clay court great. In his runs to his 3 Roland Garros titles he never dominated his opponents in mostly 3 but occasionally 4 sets like Federer. Quite often he'd go to 5 sets. Federer never losing more than 1 sets to an opponent since 2005 (other than Nadal) is indicative of his profound skill on clay.

In the very end I'm just trying to show that he should get more recognition for his clay court ability than is often given to him, whether or not he is considered a possible clay court great.

 

[anointedone]

That's the thing about the clay court specialist... or what was the clay court specialist. You'd often get a guy who's not ranked high, but could be a nightmare on a given day on clay.

Very few of those today and this is why Juan Martin Del Potro is winning events on clay.

You are right there. The top players are all the best on pretty much all surfaces (except for odd exceptions of ones who are horrible on a surface like Roddick on clay mostly). So today most of the top guys on hard courts and grass are on clay as well, and for almost all of them their worst surface is clay (Nadal an exception of course, Ferrer and Davydenko like clay more then grass but much less then they like any type of hard court).

 

[Greengrass]

To ask if Federer is the 2nd clay GOAT is an insult to Bjorn Borg to be honest

 

[FiveO]

You are right there. The top players are all the best on pretty much all surfaces (except for odd exceptions of ones who are horrible on a surface like Roddick on clay mostly). So today most of the top guys on hard courts and grass are on clay as well, and for almost all of them their worst surface is clay (Nadal an exception of course, Ferrer and Davydenko like clay more then grass but much less then they like any type of hard court).

Which wasn't the case up until just 8 years ago. There were guys who thrived on certain surfaces combined with a lot of guys who were versatile enough and/or extemely talented at what they did that they could bring that to less than their best surfaces.

The homogenization of surfaces/speeds since and how it encourages the sameness in playing approach, IMO, has thwarted the development of not only more well rounded players, but singular greatness on specific surfaces.

Fed and Nadal aside, guys who are, at best "average" on any surface become mainstays playing an almost identical game from surface to surface to surface today, because they can play the same way on all surfaces and produce average results on medium slow surfaces. Not only has the homogenous environment, which was created mostly by lopping fast conditions off of the speed spectrum thwarted game styles suited to those speeds, i.e. s & v, all-court, flatter penetrating ground games, etc., IMO it has created less urgency for clay-court types to hone their clay court skills to a razor's edge. Clay-court types feel less pressure to focus on the only place they had historically been able to amass points, the clay court season, because they now know they can get "maintenance" points throughout the year.

To me its analogous to removing the apex predator from a given environment and unintentionally diluting the gene pool of the prey animals in that environment because it is no longer survival of the fittest. The weak can survive because they are not going to be picked off when they wandered off into the predator's range.

Not only has the slowing of playing conditions/combined with other factors killed off fast court players, it has also impacted the level of clay-courters.

As good as Fed is, and he is, he would be a factor on anything, but, the 2nd best clay-courter of all time? No.

5

 

[valiant]

he's not and he's my favourite player.

 

[CyBorg]

Which wasn't the case up until just 8 years ago. There were guys who thrived on certain surfaces combined with a lot of guys who were versatile enough and/or extemely talented at what they did that they could bring that to less than their best surfaces.

The homogenization of surfaces/speeds since and how it encourages the sameness in playing approach, IMO, has thwarted the development of not only more well rounded players, but singular greatness on specific surfaces.

Fed and Nadal aside, guys who are, at best "average" on any surface become mainstays playing an almost identical game from surface to surface to surface today, because they can play the same way on all surfaces and produce average results on medium slow surfaces. Not only has the homogenous environment, which was created mostly by lopping fast conditions off of the speed spectrum thwarted game styles suited to those speeds, i.e. s & v, all-court, flatter penetrating ground games, etc., IMO it has created less urgency for clay-court types to hone their clay court skills to a razor's edge. Clay-court types feel less pressure to focus on the only place they had historically been able to amass points, the clay court season, because they now know they can get "maintenance" points throughout the year.

To me its analogous to removing the apex predator from a given environment and unintentionally diluting the gene pool of the prey animals in that environment because it is no longer survival of the fittest. The weak can survive because they are not going to be picked off when they wandered off into the predator's range.

Not only has the slowing of playing conditions/combined with other factors killed off fast court players, it has also impacted the level of clay-courters.

RIP tennis.

 

[Cenc]

RIP tennis.

lol CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!
POST OF THE YEAR
man u deserve coffee for that

 

[veroniquem]

That sort of statement is kind of a disservice to Nadal. Because basically what you are saying is Nadal is playing a bunch of clay court chumps (Federer being one of those chumps) and that's why his claycourt record is what it is now. And we all know that's far from the truth because Nadal is quite possibly the greatest claycourt player to ever play the game. But how does Federer look like a fish out of water on clay when the guy has made 3 FO finals in a row.

I didn't mean Federer was bad on clay, I meant that he doesn't look in his element (completely comfortable) as he is on other surfaces. I feel the same about Rafa when he plays on hard. As for being a "chump" of course not but there's a difference between being good and one of the greatest on the surface. He's much better than most players on clay but he's not one of the best of all time, that's all.

 

[Rickson]

He's definitely not the 2nd best, but he's by no means a bad clay court player. Borg was the best followed by Nadal.