Muster or Federer - Who had a better career on clay

Who had a better career(achieved more) on clay?

  • Muster

    Votes: 29 31.9%

  • Federer

    Votes: 59 64.8%

  • Tie

    Votes: 3 3.3%
  • Total voters
    91
E

Enigma_87

Professional
Muster:

Rolland Garros: 1 title, 1 SF, 1 QF. (32–13 w/l record)
MS: 3 times Rome winner,3 times MC winner, 1 MC final

40 clay titles, 5 finals.

Muster 111-5 on clay in 95-96(thanks to Mustard for the stats).

Federer:

Rolland Garros: 1 title, 4 finals, 2 SF's, 3 QF's, 9 straight years being in the QF's or better. (61–15 w/l record).

MS: 4 times Hamburg winner, 2 times Madrid. 4 MC finals, 3 Rome finals, 1 Madrid final, 1 Hamburg final.

10 clay titles, 14 finals.

107-16 on clay 04-09.

So, which career on clay would you folks take?
 
For me as well the big tournaments is what matters the most. And I'd go with Federer as well.

It's also important to note that during that period Federer only played 2 small events(Estoril and Gstaad) winning them both. All other matches were on RG and clay MS.

This is the reason why he had played as much matches on clay for 6 years as Muster for 2.
 
It depends how you mean. In Musters prime he dominated clay. Federer has never dominated clay. In fact he has never beaten any top clay specialist in a slam. Muster was a top clay specialist.

So Muster I'd say had a more impressive career on clay. Unfortunately he had a pretty short career in comparison, riddled with injuries and other stuff.
 
Last edited:
m2nk2 said:
It depends how you mean. In Musters prime he dominated clay. Federer has never dominated clay. In fact he has never beaten any top clay specialist. Muster was a top clay specialist.

So Muster I'd say had a more impressive career on clay. Unfortunately he had a pretty short career comparison riddled with injuries and other stuff.
Click to expand...

Yeah. He's only beaten clay court GOAT twice. Not to mention guys like Ferrero, Moya, Ferrer, Djokovic etc. zero great clay courters on this list :lol:
 
I'd take Federer's. The titles is a big discrepancy for Muster, but obviously he just played a ton of lesser tournaments. Federer has the better MS results and a much better record at RG.
 
tennisaddict said:
Better poll would be between Bruguera / Fed or Kuerten / Fed
Click to expand...

Bruguera may also be included, although he has 2 slams. Kuerten however is 3 times RG winner and not in the same bracket as Federer and Muster. That comparison should rather be with Lendl and Wilander.
 
Steve0904 said:
You think so? Or is it just because nobody has dominated clay like Nadal has?
Click to expand...

I will just copy what I posted in another thread on that:

The 4th best clay courter of this era is clearly David Ferrer. Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Moya, Corretja, Kuerten, Rios are all tons better than Ferrer. Kafelnikov, Agassi, Medvedev, Mantilla, are probably all better too (I know Mantilla you will question but I just mean in terms of playing level he is superior to Ferrer, while those others are more achieved and have a higher level).

Do you dispute all those players are better clay courters than Ferrer, and the first group far and away superior. Meanwhile impossible to dispute Ferrer is the 4th best clay courter of this era.

Pretty clear that era had more depth on clay. That wouldn't matter much to someone like Nadal, but a comparably less great clay courter like either Muster or Federer it of course does. There are hardly any players today that would even be considered a clay courter, and needless to say most aren't great players like Federer and Djokovic to be effective on clay despite not being a clay courter. Back then many players would identify themselves as a clay courter.
 
Last edited:
Russeljones said:
Muster, I'd say. The depth of the field was a lot more impressive than today.
Click to expand...

The homogenization of the surfaces and generally slower conditions nowadays made the top players adjust to slower conditions and most of the hard courts players are competent on clay and vice versa. The competition is stiffer in the rankings as well and top players usually always show at the biggest CC events.

It's harder to find weaknesses in their game as it was in the 90's. For example Muster's backhand could be abused from competent clay courters and big hitters on their day like Delpo, Soderling, Gonzalez and Berdych. Same goes for Moya's bh and one of the reasons why a good clay courter like him, winner of RG, never achieved much in todays era.
 
VolosozharGOAT said:
I will just copy what I posted in another thread on that:

The 4th best clay courter of this era is clearly David Ferrer. Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Moya, Corretja, Kuerten, Rios are all tons better than Ferrer. Kafelnikov, Agassi, Medvedev, Mantilla, are probably all better too.

Do you dispute all those players are better clay courters than Ferrer, and the first group far and away superior. Meanwhile impossible to dispute Ferrer is the 4th best clay courter of this era.

Pretty clear that era had more depth on clay. That wouldn't matter much to someone like Nadal, but a comparably less great clay courter like either Muster or Federer it of course does. There are hardly any players today that would even be considered a clay courter, and needless to say most aren't great players like Federer and Djokovic to be effective on clay despite not being a clay courter. Back then many players would identify themselves as a clay courter.
Click to expand...

If such is the case, why is Rafa's 9 FO hyped ? It came in weak era as well.

No one in the list you have exhibited the consistency day in day out. It is like people saying Sampras did not win on clay because he had great competition . Fact of the matter is he was losing to Delgado, Medvedev and a bunch of no name players.
 
tennisaddict said:
If such is the case, why is Rafa's 9 FO hyped ? It came in weak era as well.
Click to expand...

Since 9 FO is remarkable in any era. Nobody but Nadal would win 9 FO and counting, no matter how poor the competition. Which is to be expected from by by far the greatest clay courter of all time. Just like Federer faces by far the poorest grass field in history, even worse than the clay field of today, and yet his 7 Wimbledons still make him a top 5 grass player of all time.

Federer though won 1 FO, only won at 1 of the 3 Masters venues, and only 10 clay titles in the rather weak clay era he plays in, particularly compared to the super heavy clay field of the 90s.

As for consistency day in and day out, nobody on clay today shows that except Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic, so what is your point. Ferrer doesn't either, look at his RG record and all the bad losses. He hasn't even played Federer or Djokovic at RG ever, since when he wound up in their part of the draw he kept taking a bad loss to someone much lower ranked. All those are still better clay courters than Ferrer, which I notice you didn't even try to dispute, as you apparently couldn't.
 
Last edited:
m2nk2 said:
He's never beaten any clay specialist in a slam I meant to say, at least not that I can remember off the top of my head. I know he beat Nadal once or twice in smaller tournaments.
Click to expand...

Who should he beat then? Who is a clay court specialist except Rafa?
He beat Moya who I consider a clay court specialist.
I know he had some irritating losses in his early RG-career but afterwards, he beat everyone around at the french except rafa. Even on-fire-Djokovic.

Or how do you think did Muster do better at the French Open? By winning vs Chang & Kafelnikov?
He lost to Kuerten and Courier (no wins vs them).
I just don't see why you would give the edge to Muster.
 
VolosozharGOAT said:
I will just copy what I posted in another thread on that:

The 4th best clay courter of this era is clearly David Ferrer. Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Moya, Corretja, Kuerten, Rios are all tons better than Ferrer. Kafelnikov, Agassi, Medvedev, Mantilla, are probably all better too.

Do you dispute all those players are better clay courters than Ferrer, and the first group far and away superior. Meanwhile impossible to dispute Ferrer is the 4th best clay courter of this era.

Pretty clear that era had more depth on clay. That wouldn't matter much to someone like Nadal, but a comparably less great clay courter like either Muster or Federer it of course does. There are hardly any players today that would even be considered a clay courter, and needless to say most aren't great players like Federer and Djokovic to be effective on clay despite not being a clay courter. Back then many players would identify themselves as a clay courter.
Click to expand...

True, but would any of the guys in the 90's have won RG or a fair number of MS with Nadal around? Personally, I doubt it. Of that list, the only one that might win a RG with Nadal around is Kuerten, IMO. And he might need Nadal to lose like Federer did. I also think Federer is a better clay courter than everyone on the 90's list except for Kuerten. All of them are more conventional CC'ers than Federer, yes, but I have a feeling he could beat all of them consistently anyway.

I'd still take Federer's career over Muster's anyhow. He has better results at the MUCH more important tournaments. It's that simple for me.
 
Steve0904 said:
True, but would any of the guys in the 90's have won RG or a fair number of MS with Nadal around? Personally, I doubt it. Of that list, the only one that might win a RG with Nadal around is Kuerten, IMO. And he might need Nadal to lose like Federer did. I also think Federer is a better clay courter than everyone on the 90's list except for Kuerten. All of them are more conventional CC'ers than Federer, yes, but I have a feeling he could beat all of them consistently anyway.

I'd still take Federer's career over Muster's anyhow. He has better results at the MUCH more important tournaments. It's that simple for me.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't be much a threat to Nadal, the clay GOAT, but they would be a major threat to both Federer and Muster, neither who is the astoundingly great clay courter Nadal is. Muster though had to face them, and Federer didn't. So when stats like all of Federer's clay finals are brought up, the depth of the clay field (or non existant depth as in today) is an important element.
 
I think Muster wouldn't have beaten either Kuerten or Nadal. I also believe Federer has good chance of beating all of Muster's victims. H2H? I think Federer wins more if they played 10 times.
 
Steve0904 said:
True, but would any of the guys in the 90's have won RG or a fair number of MS with Nadal around? Personally, I doubt it. Of that list, the only one that might win a RG with Nadal around is Kuerten, IMO. And he might need Nadal to lose like Federer did. I also think Federer is a better clay courter than everyone on the 90's list except for Kuerten. All of them are more conventional CC'ers than Federer, yes, but I have a feeling he could beat all of them consistently anyway.

I'd still take Federer's career over Muster's anyhow. He has better results at the MUCH more important tournaments. It's that simple for me.
Click to expand...

Prime Federer would never beat prime Muster in FO. Muster would just spam his huge left hand fh to Federers bh and win easily just like Nadal does.
 
VolosozharGOAT said:
Since 9 FO is remarkable in any era. Nobody but Nadal would win 9 FO and counting, no matter how poor the competition. Which is to be expected from by by far the greatest clay courter of all time. Just like Federer faces by far the poorest grass field in history, even worse than the clay field of today, and yet his 7 Wimbledons still make him a top 5 grass player of all time.

Federer though won 1 FO, only won at 1 of the 3 Masters venues, and only 10 clay titles in the rather weak clay era he plays in, particularly compared to the super heavy clay field of the 90s.

As for consistency day in and day out, nobody on clay today shows that except Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic, so what is your point. Ferrer doesn't either, look at his RG record and all the bad losses. He hasn't even played Federer or Djokovic at RG ever, since when he wound up in their part of the draw he kept taking a bad loss to someone much lower ranked. All those are still better clay courters than Ferrer, which I notice you didn't even try to dispute, as you apparently couldn't.
Click to expand...

If 9 FO are remarkable in any era, so is 1 title , 4 finals and multiple semi finals with 5 of those losses coming only to Rafa.

So, there is nothing to indicate that Federer is an inferior player to the 90's era or he would not have been as successful in a more competitive era.

All it tells is if Rafa had not been there, Federer probably have had 6 FO and we would be comparing him with Borg !!

It took Rafa to get the better of him, no one else.
 
m2nk2 said:
Prime Federer would never beat prime Muster in FO. Muster would just spam his huge left hand fh to Federers bh and win easily just like Nadal does.
Click to expand...

When is 1 to 1 hypothetical match up become the basis for evaluating career accomplishments ?
 
tennisaddict said:
If 9 FO are remarkable in any era, so is 1 title , 4 finals and multiple semi finals with 5 of those losses coming only to Rafa.

So, there is nothing to indicate that Federer is an inferior player to the 90's era or he would not have been as successful in a more competitive era.

All it tells is if Rafa had not been there, Federer probably have had 6 FO and we would be comparing him with Borg !!

It took Rafa to get the better of him, no one else.
Click to expand...

It'd take Rafa or Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten etc to get the better of him.
 
tennisaddict said:
If 9 FO are remarkable in any era, so is 1 title , 4 finals and multiple semi finals with 5 of those losses coming only to Rafa.
Click to expand...

Sure, but a player who also has 1 FO title, a more impressive collection of Masters titles (3 Rome and 3 Monte Carlo vs 6 at the Hamburg/Madrid event), and 40 clay titles to 10 clay titles is still more remarkable. That is all that matters.

There is no era except this one where Federer winning 4 or 5 French Opens (which yes he probably would have without Nadal TODAY only) would even be possible, which only reflects the poor clay field others have noted.
 
Lets also note that Federer was 1st or 2nd seed in all of the FOs he went far in.

In the 90s for the clay specialists they had to fight their way up because they usually didn't have a high ranking to get a good seed.
 
m2nk2 said:
It'd take Rafa or Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten etc to get the better of him.
Click to expand...

If you make that argument then you better concede Rafa is not winning 9 FO in that era.

A weak era Soderling got the better of him . Why cannot a few more players from the strong era in 90's do the same ?

Perhaps Rafa has only 5 FO if he played in the 90's .
 
VolosozharGOAT said:
Sure, but a player who also has 1 FO title, a more impressive collection of Masters titles (3 Rome and 3 Monte Carlo vs 6 at the Hamburg/Madrid event), and 40 clay titles to 10 clay titles is still more remarkable. That is all that matters.

There is no era except this one where Federer winning 4 or 5 French Opens (which yes he probably would have without Nadal TODAY only) would even be possible, which only reflects the poor clay field others have noted.
Click to expand...

Let Muster have his masters and 250's.

Fed's career has always been about majors and YEC. I will take the major final losses to Rafa any day over a career of how many years ??
 
tennisaddict said:
If you make that argument then you better concede Rafa is not winning 9 FO in that era.

A weak era Soderling got the better of him . Why cannot a few more players from the strong era in 90's do the same ?

Perhaps Rafa has only 5 FO if he played in the 90's .
Click to expand...

Yeah agree, Nadal would never win 9 FO in the 90s. He'd win 2-3, maybe 4.
 
m2nk2 said:
Yeah agree, Nadal would never win 9 FO in the 90s. He'd win 2-3, maybe 4.
Click to expand...

Nadal would likely win 6 or 7. He wouldn't win 9 like today, but would still dominate.

Federer would win from 0-2. However he wouldn't make anymore than 3 finals. He also wouldn't win 6 Masters, more like 3 max.
 
tennisaddict said:
If you make that argument then you better concede Rafa is not winning 9 FO in that era.

A weak era Soderling got the better of him . Why cannot a few more players from the strong era in 90's do the same ?

Perhaps Rafa has only 5 FO if he played in the 90's .
Click to expand...

LOL why would that logic apply. Nadal is twice the clay courter the vastly inferior Federer is, so what applies to Federer does not necessarily apply to Nadal at all.

You Fed ubers are quite a piece of work. You are the same ones who say Nadal would have lost 1st or 2nd round regularly even in his peak years at Wimbledon in the 90s (thus implying the grass field was a ton better then, considering he made the finals of 5 straight Wimbledons and is still the 2nd best grass courter of this era overall) yet then say Federer would have 7+ Wimbledons then.
 
Steve0904 said:
You think so? Or is it just because nobody has dominated clay like Nadal has?
Click to expand...

Who has Nadal dominated post-2005? I am not taking anything away from Nadal. I am just saying the variety in styles back then (necessitated by the night-and-day difference between surfaces) meant Muster had to compete against a lot more and better clay specialists.
 
VolosozharGOAT said:
Nadal would likely win 6 or 7. He wouldn't win 9 like today, but would still dominate.

Federer would win from 0-2. However he wouldn't make anymore than 3 finals. He also wouldn't win 6 Masters, more like 3 max.
Click to expand...

Agree about Nadal.

I would put Fed as 1-2 at the bare minimum. Don't really care about masters
 
Enigma_87 said:
The homogenization of the surfaces and generally slower conditions nowadays made the top players adjust to slower conditions and most of the hard courts players are competent on clay and vice versa. The competition is stiffer in the rankings as well and top players usually always show at the biggest CC events.

It's harder to find weaknesses in their game as it was in the 90's. For example Muster's backhand could be abused from competent clay courters and big hitters on their day like Delpo, Soderling, Gonzalez and Berdych. Same goes for Moya's bh and one of the reasons why a good clay courter like him, winner of RG, never achieved much in todays era.
Click to expand...

In trying to reverse engineer an argument for why Muster wouldn't be successful today, you're missing the point of the question. Who HAD a better career. It is my view, and I see that is shared by a few here, that Musters clay achievements have more weight given the strength of the clay field in his day.
 
VolosozharGOAT said:
LOL why would that logic apply. Nadal is twice the clay courter the vastly inferior Federer is, so what applies to Federer does not necessarily apply to Nadal at all.

You Fed ubers are quite a piece of work. You are the same ones who say Nadal would have lost 1st or 2nd round regularly even in his peak years at Wimbledon in the 90s (thus implying the grass field was a ton better then, considering he made the finals of 5 straight Wimbledons and is still the 2nd best grass courter of this era overall) yet then say Federer would have 7+ Wimbledons then.
Click to expand...

That Rafa and Novak would be failures on 80's and 90's grass is told by players like Becker who know a thing or two about the surface.

It is not our imagination at work.
 
VolosozharGOAT said:
LOL why would that logic apply. Nadal is twice the clay courter the vastly inferior Federer is, so what applies to Federer does not necessarily apply to Nadal at all.
Click to expand...

If Fed is as poor as you make him to be, then how do we know what exactly is Rafa's level , as compared to the prior eras ?

After all Rafa can only be judged based on the opponents he faced.
 
Wow so Muster is 40-5 in clay finals? That's a pretty sick stat.

I don't know who to give the edge here. Fed has got better big stage results but the 40 titles from Muster can hardly be overlooked.
 
Steve0904 said:
I'd take Federer's. The titles is a big discrepancy for Muster, but obviously he just played a ton of lesser tournaments. Federer has the better MS results and a much better record at RG.
Click to expand...

LOL @ Federer having much better masters series results.

Muster won 3 Rome titles and 3 Monte Carlo titles. Federer has a big goose egg in each.

And in Muster's day, Hamburg was a distant 3rd to the other 2.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Muster:

Rolland Garros: 1 title, 1 SF, 1 QF. (32–13 w/l record)
MS: 3 times Rome winner,3 times MC winner, 1 MC final

40 clay titles, 5 finals.

Muster 111-5 on clay in 95-96(thanks to Mustard for the stats).

Federer:

Rolland Garros: 1 title, 4 finals, 2 SF's, 3 QF's, 9 straight years being in the QF's or better. (61–15 w/l record).

MS: 4 times Hamburg winner, 2 times Madrid. 4 MC finals, 3 Rome finals, 1 Madrid final, 1 Hamburg final.

10 clay titles, 14 finals.

107-16 on clay 04-09.

So, which career on clay would you folks take?
Click to expand...

NO contest.............Muster was MUCH MUCH better than Federer on clay courts. Muster is almost as good as Nadal. so NO contest here. If Muster played Federer on clay 10 times, then Thomas would win 8 out of 10 times......
 
tennisaddict said:
If Fed is as poor as you make him to be, then how do we know what exactly is Rafa's level , as compared to the prior eras ?

After all Rafa can only be judged based on the opponents he faced.
Click to expand...

by that logic how can one judge Federer's grass level when he only faced such poor grass courters like Nadal and Djokovic (according to you and Becker). Yet Federer didnt even achieve significantly more than other greats on grass, like Nadal did on clay. So if Nadal isnt the clay GOAT, Federer must not even be top 10 all time on grass by your logic. :lol:

You ******* and your crazy double standards and hypocricsm. You crack me up.
 
Nostradamus said:
NO contest.............Muster was MUCH MUCH better than Federer on clay courts. Muster is almost as good as Nadal. so NO contest here. If Muster played Federer on clay 10 times, then Thomas would win 8 out of 10 times......
Click to expand...

3vKJqc7.gif



federer-and-nadal-laughing-in-interview.gif
 
VolosozharGOAT said:
by that logic how can one judge Federer's grass level when he only faced such poor grass courters like Nadal and Djokovic (according to you and Becker). Yet Federer didnt even achieve significantly more than other greats on grass, like Nadal did on clay. So if Nadal isnt the clay GOAT, Federer must not even be top 10 all time on grass by your logic. :lol:

You ******* and your crazy double standards and hypocricsm. You crack me up.
Click to expand...

The irony in this post :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
  • Poll Poll
Is Sinner better clay player than Dominic Thiem, Tsitsipas, Ruud, Zverev, Ferrer
Replies
41
Views
3K
Mustard
Mustard
Atennisone
Who's better, Del Potro or Cilic
2
Replies
70
Views
6K
TheNachoMan
T
Fedeonic
Best tennis player ever to win just ONE Grand Slam title?
3 4 5
Replies
211
Views
4K
SystemicAnomaly
SystemicAnomaly
BrokenForehand
Sharapova, Clijsters, who had a better career?
2
Replies
55
Views
5K
PDJ
PDJ
A
Sampras clay court record - a closer look
Replies
0
Views
1K
alfa164164
A
Back
Top