Matchups you would love to see with both players in their primes

[Mustard]

Federer, and perhaps Moya, were considered the only threats to Coria at the start of the 2004 French Open, bearing in mind Ferrero's recent troubles at the time. Kuerten beating Federer in straight sets was considered a shock because Kuerten was thought to be well past it, but Guga rolled back the years that day.

 

[NamRanger]

Federer, and perhaps Moya, were considered the only threats to Coria at the start of the 2004 French Open, bearing it mind Ferrero's recent troubles at the time. Kuerten beating Federer in straight sets was considered a shock because Kuerten was thought to be well past it, but Guga rolled back the years that day.

Threats? Uh, I'm pretty sure Federer was a huge favorite to win it. Didn't he beat Coria in the final of Hamburg that year?

 

[Mustard]

Threats? Uh, I'm pretty sure Federer was a huge favorite to win it. Didn't he beat Coria in the final of Hamburg that year?

Federer beat Coria in Hamburg, but Coria still entered the French Open as favourite.

 

[NamRanger]

Federer beat Coria in Hamburg, but Coria still entered the French Open as favourite.

How so? Federer was world #1 and on a hotstreak going into the FO. Even if Coria was the favorite, it certainly wasn't by much because Federer gave Coria a whipping in the final of Hamburg.

 

[Mustard]

How so? Federer was world #1 and on a hotstreak going into the FO. Even if Coria was the favorite, it certainly wasn't by much because Federer gave Coria a whipping in the final of Hamburg.

Try and think about the situation without any hindsight at all. Going into the 2004 Hamburg final, Coria was on a 31 match winning streak on clay while Federer, who had 2 slams at the time, was clearly considered to be at his weakest on clay. When Federer beat Coria in 4 sets, Federer himself mentioned that Coria had a blister on his right hand and that Coria didn't play as well as he could. Federer was considered a strong contender for the French Open, but Coria was considered the best clay-court player in the world and the French Open was his to win.

It's a bit similar to 2007. When Federer beat Nadal in the Hamburg final, ending Nadal's 81 match clay-court winning streak, that didn't make Federer the favourite for the French Open because Nadal was considered the best clay-courter.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Actually I'd like to see them all on clay.

http://www.sculpture-design.com/ten..._sculptors_Laury_Dizengremel_Shen_Xioanan.jpg

by all means...

laver vs becker in grass

agassi vs nadal on rebound ace

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Wishful thinking!!!

dude.. get real. Guga was and is one of the clay greatests... and he could open a can of whop *** to anyone, just look at how he demolished Fed with a bad hip...

 

[grafselesfan]

Try and think about the situation without any hindsight at all. Going into the 2004 Hamburg final, Coria was on a 31 match winning streak on clay while Federer, who had 2 slams at the time, was clearly considered to be at his weakest on clay. When Federer beat Coria in 4 sets, Federer himself mentioned that Coria had a blister on his right hand and that Coria didn't play as well as he could. Federer was considered a strong contender for the French Open, but Coria was considered the best clay-court player in the world and the French Open was his to win.

It's a bit similar to 2007. When Federer beat Nadal in the Hamburg final, ending Nadal's 81 match clay-court winning streak, that didn't make Federer the favourite for the French Open because Nadal was considered the best clay-courter.

You so vastly overrate Coria it isnt even funny. Even paralleling Coria in 2004 on clay to Nadal on clay, ROTFL!!!!! Federer would not have been scared of facing Coria in a French Open final any year, including 2004.

 

[Mustard]

You so vastly overrate Coria it isnt even funny. Even paralleling Coria in 2004 on clay to Nadal on clay, ROTFL!!!!! Federer would not have been scared of facing Coria in a French Open final any year, including 2004.

Are you ridiculing a 31 match clay-court winning streak? Very few players have had longer streaks on clay. It's not me overrating Coria, it's people using hindsight to change their minds about Coria. I remember him being the pre-tournament favourite for the 2004 French Open. Federer was considered his biggest threat and that they would likely meet in the final, but Coria was the favourite. Using hindsight doesn't change what things were at the time.

 

[grafselesfan]

Are you ridiculing a 31 match clay-court winning streak? Very few players have had longer streaks on clay. It's not me overrating Coria, it's people using hindsight to change their minds about Coria. I remember him being the pre-tournament favourite for the 2004 French Open. Federer was considered his biggest threat and that they would likely meet in the final, but Coria was the favourite. Using hindsight doesn't change what things were at the time.

The 31 match clay court winning streak was mostly small tournaments, only 1 Masters title. The fact you and others choice Coria as the best clay courter not to win the French over people like Corretja only show how overrated he is. Whenever he faced a top gun like Ferrero, Federer, and of course Nadal on clay he lost. He only was the one to beat even at his very best when he faced no competition, when he faced a top dog he was always going to lose.

 

[Mustard]

The 31 match clay court winning streak was mostly small tournaments, only 1 Masters title. The fact you and others choice Coria as the best clay courter not to win the French over people like Corretja only show how overrated he is.

If opinions like yours are anything to go by, Coria is underrated. His peak was just a hell of a lot shorter than the peak of someone like Corretja, for a variety of reasons.

Whenever he faced a top gun like Ferrero, Federer, and of course Nadal on clay he lost.

True, but you state that as if that's the total end of the matter. Ferrero and Coria met either when Coria was still rising and Ferrero was the best clay-courter, or when Ferrero became a shadow of his former self as a result of illness and injuries, so we can't really tell how they would have been peak vs. peak.

As for Federer, yes he beat Coria at 2004 Hamburg to end his 31 match clay-court winning streak, while Federer's other wins were when he had gone up a level and Coria's form was much more erratic. As for Nadal vs. Coria, they had arguably the best clay-court match ever at Rome 2005 and there was scarcely anything between them. What a match it was.

He only was the one to beat even at his very best when he faced no competition, when he faced a top dog he was always going to lose.

Using hindsight again, I see. I was confident Coria would win the French Open that year. He seemed ready to peak at the right time and beat anyone, even Federer. Of course, you can laugh this off now using the hindsight of knowing how both their careers have headed in opposite directions since, but that don't change how things were back then.

 

[Badger]

Federer versus Sampras- grass and hard.
Federer versus Laver- all surfaces.

 

[Talker]

Seles-Henin.

 

[NamRanger]

If opinions like yours are anything to go by, Coria is underrated. His peak was just a hell of a lot shorter than the peak of someone like Corretja, for a variety of reasons.



True, but you state that as if that's the total end of the matter. Ferrero and Coria met either when Coria was still rising and Ferrero was the best clay-courter, or when Ferrero became a shadow of his former self as a result of illness and injuries, so we can't really tell how they would have been peak vs. peak.

As for Federer, yes he beat Coria at 2004 Hamburg to end his 31 match clay-court winning streak, while Federer's other wins were when he had gone up a level and Coria's form was much more erratic. As for Nadal vs. Coria, they had arguably the best clay-court match ever at Rome 2005 and there was scarcely anything between them. What a match it was.



Using hindsight again, I see. I was confident Coria would win the French Open that year. He seemed ready to peak at the right time and beat anyone, even Federer. Of course, you can laugh this off now using the hindsight of knowing how both their careers have headed in opposite directions since, but that don't change how things were back then.

Coria during his prime (2004-2005) lost to the likes of Nadal (teenager) and Davydenko. No, he's not that good. Gaudio was a better claycourt player than him. Heck, freaking Gaudio took 4 matches off Nadal or something like that.

 

[grafselesfan]

If opinions like yours are anything to go by, Coria is underrated. His peak was just a hell of a lot shorter than the peak of someone like Corretja, for a variety of reasons.

A shorter peak is part of being a weaker player in case you didnt know.

True, but you state that as if that's the total end of the matter. Ferrero and Coria met either when Coria was still rising and Ferrero was the best clay-courter, or when Ferrero became a shadow of his former self as a result of illness and injuries, so we can't really tell how they would have been peak vs. peak.

As for Federer, yes he beat Coria at 2004 Hamburg to end his 31 match clay-court winning streak, while Federer's other wins were when he had gone up a level and Coria's form was much more erratic.

Coria was destroyed by Ferrero in the Monte Carlo final in 2003, lost to Federer in Hamburg in 2004, lost to Federer in Hamburg again in 2005. If you want to say Coria was not in his prime yet in 2003, and was already past it by 2005, and dismiss Coria's loss in his only meeting with Federer on clay that year as some kind of accident, you are then trying to imply he had only a 1 year prime which only makes him look weaker, not better.

As for Nadal vs. Coria, they had arguably the best clay-court match ever at Rome 2005 and there was scarcely anything between them. What a match it was.

According to you 2003 and 2005 were not Coria's prime, yet you really think 2005 was Nadal's prime as a player, LOL! The guy was 18 years old for crying out loud, and would go 1-2 on grass that year, the very surface along with Federer he dominated starting in 2006. Baby pre prime Nadal went 2-0 vs Coria still close to his best. Imagine 2009 Nadal vs prime Coria, ouch.

Using hindsight again, I see. I was confident Coria would win the French Open that year. He seemed ready to peak at the right time and beat anyone, even Federer.

Federer, who I am far from a fan of as anyone on TW would atest to, is far too great a match player to waste an opportunity for such a major achievement to a lightweight like Coria. Sorry. If he hadnt run into a "turn back the clock" performance from Kuerten, Federer would probably have romped to that years French Open, straight setting Gaudio and Coria. Nalbandian in the quarters would have been his biggest test due to the matchup.


Bottom line Coria in his 3 best years ever on clay went 0-5 vs normal Ferrero, Federer, and teenaged Nadal, and at the French Open lost to a pre prime Davydenko, Gaudio, and Verkerk. He won 2 Masters titles, one an empty Hamburg field, and made 1 French Open final.

 

[AAAA]

A shorter peak is part of being a weaker player in case you didnt know.

I hope you apply such thinking when comparing Nadal vs Federer.

 

[Mustard]

Coria during his prime (2004-2005) lost to the likes of Nadal and Davydenko. No, he's not that good. Gaudio was a better claycourt player than him. Heck, freaking Gaudio took 4 matches off Nadal or something like that.

Nadal was pre-prime and Gaudio was in his prime, and very streaky, which was shown by the 2005 Buenos Aires match between Gaudio and Nadal that finished 0-6, 6-0, 6-1 in Gaudio's favour. Gaudio and Coria were old rivals, yet even Gaudio once said that Coria was a better player than him. Gaudio said that Coria and Nalbandian were like Real Madrid, while he was like Valencia. It's funny that Gaudio once said that, yet he is the only one of those Argentine players with a slam.

 

[grafselesfan]

I hope you apply such thinking when comparing Nadal vs Federer.

We dont yet know when Nadal's prime will last to. What we do know is Nadal began winning slams in 2005, and has won slams and Masters every year since, while Federer began winning his only 2 years earlier in 2003, and Federer is 5 years older than Nadal.

 

[Michael Bluth]

Fed had an inconsistent clay season in 04, I think he only played Rome and Hamburg and lost early in Rome. After Wimbledon he won Gstaad.

Coria on the other hand had the more consistent, dominant season results wise despite losing to Fed in Hamburg.

Coria was first favorite, not by much mind you, but first favorite nonetheless. The only other main contender was Moya, who actually served for the first two sets in his QF against Coria that year.

 

[NamRanger]

Nadal was pre-prime and Gaudio was in his prime, and very streaky, which was shown by the 2005 Buenos Aires match between Gaudio and Nadal that finished 0-6, 6-0, 6-1 in Gaudio's favour. Gaudio and Coria were old rivals, yet even Gaudio once said that Coria was a better player than him. Gaudio said that Coria and Nalbandian were like Real Madrid, while he was like Valencia. It's funny that Gaudio once said that, yet he is the only one of those Argentine players with a slam.

Yet Coria was unable to even beat Nadal in 2005.

 

[Mustard]

A shorter peak is part of being a weaker player in case you didnt know.

Coria had his rise up the rankings stopped in 2001 because of a failed drugs test, caused by ATP supplements. Coria took it upon himself to prove that the supplements were contaminated with steroids. By the time he had reduced the ban, he was angry that he hadn't been acquitted and had to make up for lost time.

2003 was when he rose to his peak as the year went on, which continued into 2004. In 2004, there were then issues with kidney stones, shoulder troubles and stomach injuries. By 2005, Coria's form was much more streaky, and he rarely played at his best, despite a consistency on all surfaces. And from the summer of 2005 onwards, he developed the service yips, which worsened over time and eventually wrecked his game.

He is one of the most unluckiest players I can think of.

Coria was destroyed by Ferrero in the Monte Carlo final in 2003

A prime Ferrero against a still rising Coria.

lost to Federer in Hamburg in 2004

Correct, ending a 31 match winning streak on clay. An excellent win for Federer.

lost to Federer in Hamburg again in 2005.

Federer was now a better player and Coria a much less confident player compared to the previous year's meeting.

If you want to say Coria was not in his prime yet in 2003, and was already past it by 2005, and dismiss Coria's loss in his only meeting with Federer on clay that year as some kind of accident, you are then trying to imply he had only a 1 year prime which only makes him look weaker, not better.

Except that a lot of things that ruined Coria were out of his control (failed drugs test, injuries, service yips).

According to you 2003 and 2005 were not Coria's prime, yet you really think 2005 was Nadal's prime as a player, LOL!

Nadal's prime was 2008 and the first half of 2009, but he was a very strong clay-courter in 2005, and proved his worth on hardcourt too. Nadal won 11 titles in 2005, which is still the most he has won in a single calendar year.

I see the Nadal vs. Coria Rome final as a pre-prime Nadal on the rise up the rankings vs. a slightly post-prime Coria who was struggling to regain his old clay-court form.

The guy was 18 years old for crying out loud, and would go 1-2 on grass that year, the very surface along with Federer he dominated starting in 2006.

Yes, I do know that. I'm a big Nadal fan, but we're talking clay-court matches with 2005 Rome, not grass-court, and Nadal was 50-2 on clay for the year 2005.

Baby pre prime Nadal went 2-0 vs Coria still close to his best. Imagine 2009 Nadal vs prime Coria, ouch.

"Baby"? LOL. Not on clay he wasn't. He was rising very fast on clay, even then. Even going into the 2005 Rome final, Nadal was 30-2 on clay for 2005, which is brilliant. And Coria was struggling to find his old form at the time.

Federer, who I am far from a fan of as anyone on TW would atest to, is far too great a match player to waste an opportunity for such a major achievement to a lightweight like Coria.

Coria was considered the best clay-court player in the world in 2004, so he wasn't lightweight. That is fact. Looking back now and getting embarrassed that people once thought Coria was the best on clay, isn't going to change the fact that that's how it was at the time.

Sorry. If he hadnt run into a "turn back the clock" performance from Kuerten, Federer would probably have romped to that years French Open, straight setting Gaudio and Coria. Nalbandian in the quarters would have been his biggest test due to the matchup.

All hypothetical speculation.

Yet Coria was unable to even beat Nadal in 2005.

Nadal was excellent on clay in 2005 and was rising fast up the rankings. I don't know why people talk as if Coria should definitely have beaten him at a time when he was struggling to find the clay-court form he showed in 2004.

 

[NamRanger]

Coria had his rise up the rankings stopped in 2001 because of a failed drugs test, caused by ATP supplements. Coria took it upon himself to prove that the supplements were contaminated with steroids. By the time he had reduced the ban, he was angry that he hadn't been acquitted and had to make up for lost time.

2003 was when he rose to his peak as the year went on, which continued into 2004. In 2004, there were then issues with kidney stones, shoulder troubles and stomach injuries. By 2005, Coria's form was much more streaky, and he rarely played at his best, despite a consistency on all surfaces. And from the summer of 2005 onwards, he developed the service yips, which worsened over time and eventually wrecked his game.

He is one of the most unluckiest players I can think of.



A prime Ferrero against a still rising Coria.



Correct, ending a 31 match winning streak on clay. An excellent win for Federer.



Federer was now a better player and Coria a much less confident player compared to the previous year's meeting.



Except that a lot of things that ruined Coria were out of his control (failed drugs test, injuries, service yips).



Nadal's prime was 2008, but he was a very strong clay-courter in 2005, and proved his worth on other surfaces too. Nadal won 11 titles in 2005, which is still the most he has won in a single calendar year.

I see the Nadal vs. Coria Rome final as a pre-prime Nadal on the rise up the rankings vs. a slightly post-prime Coria who was struggling to regain his old clay-court form.



Yes, I do know that. I'm a big Nadal fan, but we're talking clay-court matches with 2005 Rome, not grass-court, and Nadal was 50-2 on clay for the year 2005.



"Baby"? LOL. Not on clay he wasn't. He was rising very fast on clay, even then. Even going into the 2005 Rome final, Nadal was 30-2 on clay for 2005, which is brilliant. And Coria was struggling to find his old form at the time.



Coria was considered the best clay-court player in the world in 2004, so he wasn't lightweight. That is fact. Looking back now and getting embarrassed that people once thought Coria was the best on clay, isn't going to change the fact that that's how it was at the time.



All hypothetical speculation.



Nadal was excellent on clay in 2005 and was rising fast up the rankings. I don't know why people talk as if Coria should definitely have beaten him at a time when he was struggling to find the clay-court form he showed in 2004.

Gaudio was nowhere near close to his best in 2005 yet he gave Nadal a breadstick and a bagel. Coria is incapable of beating a teenage Nadal. Coria in fact, is OVERRATED. That one match is one of the most overrated matches of all time. Gaudio CRUSHED Nadal that year. Coria playing one of the best matches of his life was unable to beat Nadal.

 

[Mustard]

Gaudio was nowhere near close to his best in 2005 yet he gave Nadal a breadstick and a bagel. Coria is incapable of beating a teenage Nadal. Coria in fact, is OVERRATED. That one match is one of the most overrated matches of all time. Gaudio CRUSHED Nadal that year. Coria playing one of the best matches of his life was unable to beat Nadal.

So much had changed regarding Nadal in those 3 months between Buenos Aires and Rome. Just look at the rankings at the time. In Buenos Aires, Nadal was ranked number 48 while Gaudio was ranked number 8. Contrast that with Rome, where Nadal was ranked number 7 while Coria was ranked number 11.

 

[GustafsonFanatic]

delete post

 

[boredone3456]

Matches I would like to see, some have already been mentioned but I'll say them again

McEnroe vs Fed @ Wimbledon (both old grass and new...just to see)

Borg vs Nadal on clay (an obvious choice but a good one)

Lendl vs Nadal on clay- I think this would be interesting, Lendl won 3/4 French Opens during his best years and was strong on clay overall, sort of like Nadal was during his own time. Not sure how well Lendl's game would match nadal's...but I still think it would be interesting to see.

Connors vs Fed on a hardcourt- Why I dunno, just think it would be interesting, even if Fed did win in straights

Davenport vs Clijsters hardcourt- Davenport of 1998 or 2000 against Kim of 2003 or 2005 would be a good match.

Connolly vs Wills or Lenglen- All were such dominant forces and having read about them I would like to see her face either of them women. But honestly,
Connolly vs most any other all time great would be interesting.

Court vs Navratilova on grass

Henin vs Vicario on clay

 

[Ripster]

Coria during his prime (2004-2005) lost to the likes of Nadal (teenager) and Davydenko. No, he's not that good. Gaudio was a better claycourt player than him. Heck, freaking Gaudio took 4 matches off Nadal or something like that.

Um no. Coria has more single titles and leads their H2H. He also won two Masters Series titles while Gaudio has zero. In fact, outside of his RG win, Gaudio's only won small clay events, nothing that would indicate he's even in the same league as Coria. Gaudio's one fluke accomplishment was winning RG after getting destroyed in the first two sets 6-0, 6-3 and then relied on Coria completely choking/cramping. Had Coria won that match like he should have the differences in both players resumes would be laughable.

 

[jrepac]

matchups

I would love to see head to head series matches on all the surfaces (indoors fast, hard courts, grass courts, clay courts (red and green), at the grandest venues, between:

Federer vs. Borg
Laver vs. McEnroe
Connors vs. Nadal
Lendl vs.Federer/Nadal
Sampras vs. Borg
Pancho Gonzales vs. Sampras/McEnroe/Borg/Nadal
Laver vs. Borg/Nadal/Federer/Sampras

The possibilities are endless, yet here are some matchups that come to my mind.

I like this list along with the very first post. Some of the other matchups suggested have happened, even if not prime v. prime. Saw enuff of Agassi v. Connors to believe that prime Jimbo would surpass Andre. At 37, Jimmy could go toe-to-toe with him...at 25, I think Jimmy would edge him out. Fed v. Borg, Fed v. Mac would be neat to see. Fed v. Connors could be interesting, but the more intriguing matches would be Connors v. Nadal or Lendl v. Nadal. Court surface would really make a difference too...but, have them play 1 on each of the surfaces....

 

[NamRanger]

Um no. Coria has more single titles and leads their H2H. He also won two Masters Series titles while Gaudio has zero. In fact, outside of his RG win, Gaudio's only won small clay events, nothing that would indicate he's even in the same league as Coria. Gaudio's one fluke accomplishment was winning RG after getting destroyed in the first two sets 6-0, 6-3 and then relied on Coria completely choking/cramping. Had Coria won that match like he should have the differences in both players resumes would be laughable.

Too bad, Gaudio won the title that counted and got outchoked by Coria. Fitness and mental toughness are apart of being a great player; Coria wasn't fit enough or mentally tough enough. You can have all your titles and such. Gaudio won the big one when it counted the most, and therefore is the better clay court player.

 

[Deleted member 22147]

Safin Mcenroe

 

[grafselesfan]

Um no. Coria has more single titles and leads their H2H. He also won two Masters Series titles while Gaudio has zero. In fact, outside of his RG win, Gaudio's only won small clay events, nothing that would indicate he's even in the same league as Coria. Gaudio's one fluke accomplishment was winning RG after getting destroyed in the first two sets 6-0, 6-3 and then relied on Coria completely choking/cramping. Had Coria won that match like he should have the differences in both players resumes would be laughable.

While alot of this is true, do keep in mind the vast majority of Coria's titles were small clay court titles too. He only won 2 Masters titles, and 1 was a depleted Hamburg field (where his toughest match was 3 setter with Gaudio himself in the semis). He of course never won the French. One could argue 1 French Open trumps 2 Masters titles, but Coria did have other Masters finals and a final and semi at the French on top of that.

Coria was probably better than Gaudio but he still never really proved himself vs top level clay courters. Who did he ever beat when he was having his success on clay. His lack of success vs Federer, Nadal, and Ferrero has already been discussed at end. I wouldnt have faith in his ability to beat a prime Kuerten. I wouldnt even think he could handle Djokovic of 2008-2009 on clay when Djoko is in good form. He lost to Davydenko in 2005 at the French when Davydenko was just starting to establish himself and Coria was still near his best. The best clay courter he ever had any success vs was a past his prime Moya. Yeah he did well in some clay court events, but he never gave the impression he could take down any big scalps to do it. Look at the people he ever beat on clay for his better wins or results. Nothing special really.

 

[President of Serve/Volley]

Agassi of 1995 vs Nalbandian of 2007.

 

[President of Serve/Volley]

Safin Mcenroe

That would one hell of a match of emotional outbursts!

 

[Anaconda]

2003 Roddick V's 2008 Nadal. The most powerful player v's the best defender.

2005 Federer v's 2000 Safin. Enough said!!!!!!!

 

[5th Element]

Becker v Nadal (tempo opposites)
Sampras v Nadal at AO
Sampras v Federer @ USO, Wimbledon and on a fast carpet surface
Nadal v Chang at French Open
Nadal v Borg at French Open
Ivanisevic v Karlovic on carpet (prob over 100 aces served combined)
Rafter v Nadal
Sampras v Stepanek NOW (I bet Sampras wins)
Sampras v Del Potro
Agassi v Djoko
and finally...

Wayne Ferreira v Stepanek - the match with the lowest TV viewing figures ever due to its ugliness

 

[NamRanger]

While alot of this is true, do keep in mind the vast majority of Coria's titles were small clay court titles too. He only won 2 Masters titles, and 1 was a depleted Hamburg field (where his toughest match was 3 setter with Gaudio himself in the semis). He of course never won the French. One could argue 1 French Open trumps 2 Masters titles, but Coria did have other Masters finals and a final and semi at the French on top of that.

Coria was probably better than Gaudio but he still never really proved himself vs top level clay courters. Who did he ever beat when he was having his success on clay. His lack of success vs Federer, Nadal, and Ferrero has already been discussed at end. I wouldnt have faith in his ability to beat a prime Kuerten. I wouldnt even think he could handle Djokovic of 2008-2009 on clay when Djoko is in good form. He lost to Davydenko in 2005 at the French when Davydenko was just starting to establish himself and Coria was still near his best. The best clay courter he ever had any success vs was a past his prime Moya. Yeah he did well in some clay court events, but he never gave the impression he could take down any big scalps to do it. Look at the people he ever beat on clay for his better wins or results. Nothing special really.

I say Gaudio's success against Nadal and his win at the FO trumps Coria's achievements. Do remember that Coria was in big trouble to a pure S&V Tim Henman in the SF of the FO that year.

 

[President of Serve/Volley]

2003 Roddick V's 2008 Nadal. The most powerful player v's the best defender.

2005 Federer v's 2000 Safin. Enough said!!!!!!!

Safin would win that match...

 

[Mustard]

I say Gaudio's success against Nadal and his win at the FO trumps Coria's achievements. Do remember that Coria was in big trouble to a pure S&V Tim Henman in the SF of the FO that year.

And then Coria changed his shoes and tactics, and proceeded to win 13 games in a row. As I mentioned before, when Gaudio beat Nadal at Buenos Aires in February 2005, Gaudio was ranked 40 places higher than Nadal. When Nadal and Coria met in Rome 3 months later, Nadal was actually ranked 4 places higher than Coria.

Nadal progressed as a player at an enormous rate in 2005.

 

[NamRanger]

And then Coria changed his shoes and tactics, and proceeded to win 13 games in a row. As I mentioned before, when Gaudio beat Nadal at Buenos Aires in February 2005, Gaudio was ranked 40 places higher than Nadal. When Nadal and Coria met in Rome 3 months later, Nadal was actually ranked 4 places higher than Coria.

Nadal progressed as a player at an enormous rate in 2005.

Coria shouldn't have even lost a set to Henman if he is as good as you say he is. Tim Henman, although a good player, made use of an extremely weak draw and still manage to give supposedly the best clay court player a run for his money. You also forgot to mention the fact that Henman nearly took the thing to 5 and was serving for the 4th set, recovering from a 3-0 deficit. Hell, you also fail to mention Henman was also up a break in the 2nd set. In fact, Coria was damn well lucky that Henman wasn't a better claycourt player, because if he was, Coria would have lost.



The fact that Coria even lost a set and was in trouble against Tim Henman, who has never done anything on clay except that one SF, should tell you in fact that he is very overrated.




Joke, Nadal was a very good player in February. Remember like a month ago he reached a final in Miami and nearly beat Federer in the final had he not gassed out. On clay, his best surface, the guy was near invincible until running into Gaudio. Ranking didn't really matter; we all know Nadal at #40 then did not play like #40; the guy played like he was the world #2.

 

[Anaconda]

Coria shouldn't have even lost a set to Henman if he is as good as you say he is. Tim Henman, although a good player, made use of an extremely weak draw and still manage to give supposedly the best clay court player a run for his money.



The fact that Coria even lost a set and was in trouble against Tim Henman, who has never done anything on clay except that one SF, should tell you in fact that he is very overrated.

Coria was kind of like the 'andy murray' of today. He would win some good events but would choke in grand slams.

I was watching the coria v gaudio match today, and it was painful to watch. Coria is definately overrated; like you said even henman had chances to win and on clay that is worrying.

I consider gaudio to be the 3rd best claycourter in the last 5 years behind Nadal and Federer respectfully.

 

[NamRanger]

Coria was kind of like the 'andy murray' of today. He would win some good events but would choke in grand slams.

I was watching the coria v gaudio match today, and it was painful to watch. Coria is definately overrated; like you said even henman had chances to win and on clay that is worrying.

I consider gaudio to be the 3rd best claycourter in the last 5 years behind Nadal and Federer respectfully.

Henman had MANY chances to take control of that match. I couldn't believe it myself at the time. Henman playing as well as he did, should have never even come that close to beating Coria if he was good as he is supposed to be.

 

[Anaconda]

Henman had MANY chances to take control of that match. I couldn't believe it myself at the time. Henman playing as well as he did, should have never even come that close to beating Coria if he was good as he is supposed to be.

It might just be a tough matchup for coria - having said that most players are able to handle Henman in big matches.

 

[NamRanger]

It might just be a tough matchup for coria - having said that most players are able to handle Henman in big matches.

Their last encounter on clay Coria beat him 2 and 1, and he even beat Henman at Cincinnati, so not exactly a bad match-up for Coria at all. Especially on clay.

 

[Anaconda]

Their last encounter on clay Coria beat him 2 and 1, and he even beat Henman at Cincinnati, so not exactly a bad match-up for Coria at all. Especially on clay.

I didn't know the H2H. Coria must be overrated.

you watched the game - did coria play well or was henman going for broke?

 

[NamRanger]

I didn't know the H2H. Coria must be overrated.

you watched the game - did coria play well or was henman going for broke?

Henman played a disruptive game, attacking alot and mixing in S&V along with dropshots. At some point, Coria finally got his head on straight and was finally able to pass Henman. Henman kind of imploded in the 3rd and early on in the 4th, but proceeded to find his form again and rolled off 5 straight games on Coria to serve for the set, and in typical Henman fashion, chokes and blows his lead, and proceeds to lose.

 

[Anaconda]

Henman played a disruptive game, attacking alot and mixing in S&V along with dropshots. At some point, Coria finally got his head on straight and was finally able to pass Henman. Henman kind of imploded in the 3rd and early on in the 4th, but proceeded to find his form again and rolled off 5 straight games on Coria to serve for the set, and in typical Henman fashion, chokes and blows his lead, and proceeds to lose.

Typical brit!!!

 

[Mustard]

Coria shouldn't have even lost a set to Henman if he is as good as you say he is. Tim Henman, although a good player, made use of an extremely weak draw and still manage to give supposedly the best clay court player a run for his money.

Henman was a serve and volleyer, a sort of player than Coria was not used to playing against, so he struggled somewhat for a set and a half. But once Coria changed his tactics and took the initiative more, Henman was knocked out of his rhythm and Coria won 13 straight games.

You also forgot to mention the fact that Henman nearly took the thing to 5 and was serving for the 4th set, recovering from a 3-0 deficit.

Henman won 5 games in a row from 0-3 down in the fourth set, but then Coria won 4 games in a row to take the set 7-5. Coria regularly had these ebbs and flows in his game, even at his peak.

Hell, you also fail to mention Henman was also up a break in the 2nd set. In fact, Coria was damn well lucky that Henman wasn't a better claycourt player, because if he was, Coria would have lost.

Henman dictated serve-volley tennis on the match for a set and a half, but then Coria changed this and Henman was lost. When Henman recovered and served for the 4th set, he wasted the opportunity.

The fact that Coria even lost a set and was in trouble against Tim Henman, who has never done anything on clay except that one SF, should tell you in fact that he is very overrated.

Henman played his best tennis outside of grass-courts in 2004. He had a very good French Open that year.

Joke, Nadal was a very good player in February. Remember like a month ago he reached a final in Miami and nearly beat Federer in the final had he not gassed out. On clay, his best surface, the guy was near invincible until running into Gaudio. Ranking didn't really matter; we all know Nadal at #40 then did not play like #40; the guy played like he was the world #2.

This is all so far wide of the mark it's hard to know where to begin. What had Nadal achieved by early February 2005 that showed he was anywhere near world number 2 standard? He had only won 1 tournament in his career at that stage (2004 Sopot) and was only 5-3 for the year 2005 going into Buenos Aires. Considering that Nadal would finish 2005 with a 79-10 win-loss record, a French Open title, 4 masters titles and 6 other titles, he obviously grew in stature very fast indeed, but there was no trace of this all the way back in early February.

The Miami final against Federer wasn't until the 3rd April, while the Buenos Aires quarter final against Gaudio was on the 11th February. The Buenos Aires tournament where Nadal lost to Gaudio was Nadal's first clay-court tournament of 2005 and Nadal was not "near invincible" on clay at that time or anything of the sort. He finished 2004 with a 14-3 win-loss record on clay (1 of the losses to Gaudio), but missed all the clay-court masters events and the French Open in 2004 due to injury.

As for your criticisms of the world rankings, you don't seem to realise that they take all results into account from the previous 52 weeks, and at the time of the Buenos Aires quarter final between Nadal and Gaudio, Nadal was ranked number 48 while Gaudio was ranked number 8.

Nadal shot up the rankings in the months after losing to Gaudio in Buenos Aires because he then went on to win clay-court tournaments in Costa Do Sauipe and Acapulco, followed that up by losing to Federer in the Miami final, and then lost to Andreev in the quarter finals of Valencia. Then, with no more points to defend at all until after Wimbledon, Nadal embarked on what would eventually become an 81 match winning streak on clay and won Monte Carlo and Barcelona. All this shot Nadal's ranking up to number 7 by the Rome Masters, number 5 after winning Rome and going into the French Open, number 3 after his French Open win, and number 2 on the 25th July after winning tournaments in Bastad and Stuttgart.

As I said before, Nadal rose up the rankings very quickly in 2005. The difference between Nadal in the Buenos Aires match against Gaudio and the Rome final against Coria is 41 ranking places.

 

[All-rounder]

Prime Borg vs Prime nadal on clay

 

[Deleted member 22147]

Henman played great at the 2004 RG, the match against Chela was unbelievable.

 

[Mustard]

Henman played great at the 2004 RG, the match against Chela was unbelievable.

Henman played excellent that day, and he also had 2 victories where he came back from 2 sets down, against Saulnier and Llodra.

 

[Michael Bluth]

Ironically that 2004 FO might have been Henman's best chance to win a slam.