Open era rankings by titles won per surface

[money_ball]

Note: Asterisk (*) denotes active players.

Total titles (at least 20 titles)

Rk  Player name             Total titles
--  -----------             ------------
1   Jimmy Connors           111
2   Roger Federer (*)       95
2   Ivan Lendl              95
4   John McEnroe            78
5   Rafael Nadal (*)        75
6   Novak Djokovic (*)      68
7   Bjorn Borg              65
8   Pete Sampras            64
9   Guillermo Vilas         62
10  Andre Agassi            60
11  Ilie Nastase            58
12  Boris Becker            50
13  Rod Laver               47
14  Andy Murray (*)         45
15  Thomas Muster           44
16  Stefan Edberg           42
17  Stan Smith              37
18  Michael Chang           35
19  Arthur Ashe             33
19  Mats Wilander           33
21  John Newcombe           32
21  Andy Roddick            32
23  Lleyton Hewitt          31
23  Manuel Orantes          31
23  Ken Rosewall            31
26  David Ferrer (*)        27
27  Jose-Luis Clerc         26
27  Vitas Gerulaitis        26
27  Yevgeny Kafelnikov      26
27  Tom Okker               26
31  Brian Gottfried         24
31  Goran Ivanisevic        24
33  Jim Courier             23
33  Yannick Noah            23
35  Eddie Dibbs             22
35  Harold Solomon          22
37  Nikolay Davydenko       21
37  Brad Gilbert            21
37  Andres Gomez            21
40  Juan Martin del Potro (*) 20
40  Gustavo Kuerten         20
40  Carlos Moya             20

Clay titles (at least 10 titles)

Rk  Player name         Clay titles
--  -----------         -----------
1   Rafael Nadal (*)     53
2   Guillermo Vilas     47
3   Thomas Muster       40
4   Ivan Lendl          28
4   Bjorn Borg          28
6   Ilie Nastase        27
7   Manuel Orantes      24
8   Jose-Luis Clerc     22
9   Mats Wilander       20
10  Jose Higueras       17
11  Andres Gomez        16
11  Carlos Moya         16
13  Gustavo Kuerten     15
14  Eddie Dibbs         14
14  Sergi Bruguera      14
14  Alberto Berasategui 14
17  Novak Djokovic (*)  13
17  David Ferrer (*)    13
17  Juan Carlos Ferrero 13
17  Emilio Sanchez      13
17  Nicolas Almagro (*) 13
17  Albert Costa        13
17  Balazs Taroczy      13
24  Jimmy Connors       12
24  Yannick Noah        12
26  Roger Federer (*)   11
26  Tommy Robredo (*)   11
28  Arthur Ashe         10
28  Nikolay Davydenko   10
28  Alex Corretja       10
28  Karel Novacek       10
28  Kent Carlsson       10
28  Felix Mantilla      10

Hard titles (at least 10 titles)

Rk  Player name             Hard titles
--  -----------             -----------
1   Roger Federer (*)       65
2   Novak Djokovic (*)      51
3   Jimmy Connors           48
3   Andre Agassi            48
5   Pete Sampras            38
6   Andy Murray (*)         33
7   Ivan Lendl              32
8   Stefan Edberg           23
9   John McEnroe            22
10  Michael Chang           21
10  Andy Roddick            21
10  Lleyton Hewitt          21
13  Boris Becker            20
14  Rafael Nadal (*)        18
15  Ilie Nastase            17
15  Rod Laver               17
15  Jim Courier             17
18  Juan Martin del Potro (*) 16
19  Stan Smith              15
19  John Newcombe           15
19  Brad Gilbert            15
19  Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (*)  15
23  Thomas Enqvist          14
23  Marin Cilic (*)          14
25  Brian Gottfried         13
25  Marat Safin             13
27  David Ferrer (*)        12
28  Ken Rosewall            11
28  Tommy Haas              11
28  Wayne Ferreira          11
31  Vitas Gerulaitis        10
31  Tim Henman              10
31  James Blake             10

Grass titles (at least 3 titles)

Rk  Player name         Grass
--  -----------         -----
1   Roger Federer (*)   17
2   Jimmy Connors       11
3   Pete Sampras        10
4   John McEnroe        8
4   Andy Murray (*)     8
4   Lleyton Hewitt      8
7   Bjorn Borg          7
7   Boris Becker        7
7   Rod Laver           7
7   Ken Rosewall        7
11  John Newcombe       6
11  Vijay Amritraj      6
11  Mark Edmondson      6
14  Stefan Edberg       5
14  Stan Smith          5
14  Andy Roddick        5
14  Greg Rusedski       5
14  Johan Kriek         5
14  Tony Roche          5
20  Rafael Nadal (*)    4
20  Novak Djokovic (*)  4
20  Guillermo Vilas     4
20  Michael Stich       4
20  Patrick Rafter      4
20  Nicolas Mahut       4
26  Ilie Nastase        3
26  Yevgeny Kafelnikov  3
26  Tom Okker           3
26  Richard Krajicek    3
26  Roscoe Tanner       3
26  John Isner          3
26  Ivo Karlovic (*)    3
26  Pat Cash            3
26  John Fitzgerald     3
26  Feliciano Lopez (*) 3
26  Fred Stolle         3

Carpet titles (at least 5 titles)

Rk  Player name         Carpet
--  -----------         -----
1   John McEnroe        43
2   Jimmy Connors       40
3   Ivan Lendl          33
4   Bjorn Borg          22
4   Boris Becker        22
6   Rod Laver           17
7   Pete Sampras        13
7   Arthur Ashe         13
7   Goran Ivanisevic    13
10  Stan Smith          12
11  Ilie Nastase        11
11  Yevgeny Kafelnikov  11
13  Stefan Edberg       10
14  Michael Chang       9
15  Tom Okker           8
15  Wojtek Fibak        8
17  Michael Stich       7
18  Guillermo Vilas     6
18  John Newcombe       6
18  Brian Gottfried     6
18  Richard Krajicek    6
18  Sandy Mayer         6
23  Ken Rosewall        5
23  Vitas Gerulaitis    5
23  Brad Gilbert        5
23  Roscoe Tanner       5
23  Gene Mayer          5
23  Marc Rosset         5
23  Tim Mayotte         5
23  Anders Jarryd       5
23  Dick Stockton       5

 

[KG1965]

Total titles (at least 20 titles)

Connors data is incorrect:
12 + 39 + 9 + 49 = 109, not 12 + 40 + 11 + 48 = 111

... also McEnroe and Lendl (77 & 94)

 

[octogon]

This makes interesting reading. Nadal, often criticised as a surface specialist, is in the top 10 Open era for Clay Titles and Grass titles won. And only 2 titles away from being in the top 10 for Hardcourt wins.

Djokovic is in the top 10 for Hardcourt and top 10 for Grass.He's 3 titles from getting in the top 10 for Clay.

Federer is in the top 10 for Hardcourt and top 10 for Grass. He's 6 titles away from making it in the top 10 for Clay.

Djokovic and Nadal are almost mirror images of each other. Extremely dominant on one surface (Hard for Djoker, Clay for Nadal), very strong on each others favorite surface, and dead even on grass as top 10 open era grass courters.

Federer is dominant on Hard and Grass, but will never get in the top 10 for clay (unless he decides to spend a season or two in South America to vulture some clay court titles).

Nadal is pretty much guaranteed to end up top 10 in all 3 relevant surfaces (Carpet is an obsolete surface for top guys today). Djokovic should end up there as well (though his form and Nadal's clay dominance, and Thiem's increasing danger on clay may make it harder than it seems). And Federer will only be top 10 for Hard and Grass.

There is an argument that Nadal is the most well rounded by surface, then Djokovic (who is as much a "specialist" as Nadal, just not quite as succesful), then Federer.

 

[Tennisanity]

^^^ LOLLLLLLLLLL

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I am actually the most impressed by Murray looking at this.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

^^^ LOLLLLLLLLLL

 

[octogon]

^^^ LOLLLLLLLLLL

Repeat after me....Federer WILL NEVER be in the top 10 Open Era for Clay Titles won.

Nadal will be in the top 10 Open era for Hard, Clay and Grass titles won. Probably the same for Djokovic.

No wonder Rafa was pimping Djokovic so hard this week over Fed.

LOOLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fed needs to work on that Open Era surface distribution dawg.

 

[killerboi2]

This makes interesting reading. Nadal, often criticised as a surface specialist

I think this is just Federer and Djokovic fans jealousy. He obviously has a lot of game off clay, especially in his prime, winning slams on 3 different surfaces in the same year. I agree that Djokovic is more of a surface specialist.

 

[octogon]

I am actually the most impressed by Murray looking at this.

You're easily impressed then. He's not even in the top 20 for Clay titles won. He's really good on fast surfaces, which isn't news to anyone.

 

[NoleFam]

I think this is just Federer and Djokovic fans jealousy. He obviously has a lot of game off clay, especially in his prime, winning slams on 3 different surfaces in the same year. I agree that Djokovic is more of a surface specialist.

I don't know about Djokovic being more of a surface specialist. They both have 8 Masters titles on each other's favorite surface. The difference is there are 6 Masters played on hard and 3 played on clay, which means Djokovic has less opportunities to win clay Masters than Nadal for hardcourt, yet he is tied with him.

 

[octogon]

I don't know about Djokovic being more of a surface specialist. They both have 8 Masters titles on each other's favorite surface. The difference is there are 6 Masters played on hard and 3 played on clay, which means Djokovic has less opportunities to win clay Masters than Nadal for hardcourt, yet he is tied with him.

Nadal has also been injured a lot more than Djokovic, so has missed several hardcourt masters over his career (I presume many more than Djoker). So that has to be factored in.

 

[NoleFam]

Nadal has also been injured a lot more than Djokovic, so has missed several hardcourt masters over his career (I presume many more than Djoker). So that has to be factored in.

Yes that's true but even if you factor all that in, there would still probably be plenty more hardcourt Masters played versus clay Masters played by each player.

 

[NatF]

This makes interesting reading. Nadal, often criticised as a surface specialist, is in the top 10 Open era for Clay Titles and Grass titles won. And only 2 titles away from being in the top 10 for Hardcourt wins.

Djokovic is in the top 10 for Hardcourt and top 10 for Grass.He's 3 titles from getting in the top 10 for Clay.

Federer is in the top 10 for Hardcourt and top 10 for Grass. He's 6 titles away from making it in the top 10 for Clay.

Djokovic and Nadal are almost mirror images of each other. Extremely dominant on one surface (Hard for Djoker, Clay for Nadal), very strong on each others favorite surface, and dead even on grass as top 10 open era grass courters.

Federer is dominant on Hard and Grass, but will never get in the top 10 for clay (unless he decides to spend a season or two in South America to vulture some clay court titles).

Nadal is pretty much guaranteed to end up top 10 in all 3 relevant surfaces (Carpet is an obsolete surface for top guys today). Djokovic should end up there as well (though his form and Nadal's clay dominance, and Thiem's increasing danger on clay may make it harder than it seems). And Federer will only be top 10 for Hard and Grass.

There is an argument that Nadal is the most well rounded by surface, then Djokovic (who is as much a "specialist" as Nadal, just not quite as succesful), then Federer.

There are 19 people in this list with more grass titles than Nadal and 13 with more HC titles. You also forget there's a lot more opportunity to win titles on HC than clay...

There's no argument that Nadal is the most rounded by surface even going by placing on this list rather than actual numbers of titles

 

[Deleted member 77403]

You're easily impressed then. He's not even in the top 20 for Clay titles won. He's really good on fast surfaces, which isn't news to anyone.

I am impressed by the fact, that despite being called all kinds of derogatory things, being a pigeon, etc etc Murray has put up very interesting numbers. Overall only 12 people have won more titles than him, and on hard and grass, it really is a who's who of GOATs on those surfaces who have won more titles than him. Incredible that he he has more titles than Nadal on two different surfaces and more titles than Djokovic on grass. It shows that Murray was no clown, but an exceptional talent who for me deserves to be part of the big four, he maybe the fourth member, but that position is rightfully his imo.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I think this is just Federer and Djokovic fans jealousy. He obviously has a lot of game off clay, especially in his prime, winning slams on 3 different surfaces in the same year. I agree that Djokovic is more of a surface specialist.

You would have to say that Nadal is a better all surface player than Sampras also in those regards.

 

[octogon]

There are 19 people in this list with more grass titles than Nadal and 13 with more HC titles. You also forget there's a lot more opportunity to win titles on HC than clay...

There's no argument that Nadal is the most rounded by surface even going by placing on this list rather than actual numbers of titles

Plenty of opportunities to win titles on Clay though. Federer doesn't have much excuse for not even being close to the top 10, when Djokovic is likely to make it

I'm just going by whose in the top 10, or close to it. That's enough to be called well-rounded imho. Which is not the same as dominant. If Fed was in the top 10 for clay, it wouldn't matter if 13 people had more clay titles than him. it'd be proof that he's top 10 open era for clay titles won.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I don't know about Djokovic being more of a surface specialist. They both have 8 Masters titles on each other's favorite surface. The difference is there are 6 Masters played on hard and 3 played on clay, which means Djokovic has less opportunities to win clay Masters than Nadal for hardcourt, yet he is tied with him.

You can't really say Djokovic is a surface specialist when he has three Wimbledon titles, and has the exact amount of grass titles that Nadal has.

 

[NoleFam]

You can't really say Djokovic is a surface specialist when he has three Wimbledon titles, and has the exact amount of grass titles that Nadal has.

Yea. 3 Wimbledons, all the clay Masters multiple times, etc. That's why he needs to win another Wimbledon and more clay Masters to end this talk for good.

 

[NatF]

Plenty of opportunities to win titles on Clay though. Federer doesn't have much excuse for not even being close to the top 10, when Djokovic is likely to make it

I'm just going by whose in the top 10, or close to it. That's enough to be called well-rounded imho.

Guy had a more consistent Nadal blocking his path than Djokovic who at least had 15-16 without a prime Nadal.

Nadal had a really good peak on grass but declined early, Federer's been more consistent on clay over his career. I don't see much difference between them overall, I've not counted but they look to be in similar positions.

 

[octogon]

You can't really say Djokovic is a surface specialist when he has three Wimbledon titles, and has the exact amount of grass titles that Nadal has.

I think the point is, it's pretty much impossible to call Nadal a surface specialist, without applying that same lable to Djokovic, who has picked up the vast majority on his titles of hardcourt.

People try to use Nadal's clay dominance against him, but don't do the same for Djokovic when it's at least equally applicable. Nadal is at a bare minimum exactly as well rounded by surface as Djokovic (they dominate one surface, and have won big on the others). Though you'd never know it the way some fans (particularly Fed fans) talk.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yea. 3 Wimbledons, all the clay Masters multiple times, etc. That's why he needs to win another Wimbledon and more clay Masters to end this talk for good.

No surface specialist holds all 4 slams at the same time on all three different surface. The only player in history, let me say that again...the only player in history to simultaneously hold all four slams on three different surfaces at the same time, not to mention, holding the biggest title indoors the WTF...he is the last person anyone should be calling a surface specialist.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I think the point is, it's pretty much impossible to call Nadal a surface specialist, without applying that same lable to Djokovic, who has picked up the vast majority on his titles of hardcourt.

People try to use Nadal's clay dominance against him, but don't do the same for Djokovic when it's at least equally applicable. Nadal is at a bare minimum exactly as well rounded by surface as Djokovic (they dominate one surface, and have won big on the others). Though you'd never know it the way some fans (particularly Fed fans) talk.

None of them are surface specialists. Anyone can see that. Heck even Murray has been an all surface player.

 

[octogon]

Guy had a more consistent Nadal blocking his path than Djokovic who at least had 15-16 without a prime Nadal.

Nadal had a really good peak on grass but declined early, Federer's been more consistent on clay over his career. I don't see much difference between them overall, I've not counted but they look to be in similar positions.

By the same token, Federer had several seasons on tour when he was winning titles and slams before Nadal even became a factor as the uber-dominant clay maestro. Federer couldn't take advantadge of that 3 year period before Nadal really arrived, even though his first Masters title was actually on Clay in Hamburg in 2002. You can't fully use Nadal as an excuse, when Fed had almost 3 years without Nadal to rack up Clay titles.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[NoleFam]

No surface specialist holds all 4 slams at the same time on all three different surface. The only player in history, let me say that again...the only player in history to simultaneously hold all four slams on three different surfaces at the same time, not to mention, holding the biggest title indoors the WTF...he is the last person anyone should be calling a surface specialist.

Well yea. He held all the Slams on 3 different surfaces (hard, clay, grass) the WTF (hard) as well as 4 hardcourt and 1 clay Masters. That doesn't sound like a surface specialist.

 

[octogon]

None of them are surface specialists. Anyone can see that. Heck even Murray has been an all surface player.

Obviously, I'm talking about the less rational people who still claim "Clay Skew" means Nadal can't be GOAT or some such nonsense.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Well yea. He held all the Slams on 3 different surfaces (hard, clay, grass) the WTF (hard) as well as 4 hardcourt and 1 clay Masters. That doesn't sound like a surface specialist.

That is the criteria to be called The Earth's Mightiest Warrior...when you comprehensively and outright dominate the entire tour absolutely everywhere on every surface, in every condition.

Obviously, I'm talking about the less rational people who still claim "Clay Skew" means Nadal can't be GOAT or some such nonsense.

Nadal is not a surface specialist, no matter what his detractors say. He has a career slam for heavens sake.

 

[NoleFam]

That is the criteria to be called The Earth's Mightiest Warrior...when you comprehensively and outright dominate the entire tour absolutely everywhere on every surface, in every condition.



Nadal is not a surface specialist, no matter what his detractors say. He has a career slam for heavens sake.

That's what it takes. No easy way out...the point of no return. All or nothing.

Yea Nadal has 4 hard court Slams and 2 on grass. That's 6 Slams so I wouldn't exactly call that a surface specialist either.

 

[TheFifthSet]

There is an argument that Nadal is the most well rounded by surface, then Djokovic (who is as much a "specialist" as Nadal, just not quite as succesful), then Federer.

It's a pretty specious argument. Clay courts make up about 32% of the tour and 35% of all big tournaments, yet Nadal has won 70.6% of his titles on it. Only 30% of his tournament wins have been on the two surfaces that make up 65% of the tour and 71% of Tier 1 tournaments.

Federer has won 65 of his 95 titles on HC (68%) but HC constitutes about 55% of the tour and 65% of the big (majors, WTF, masters) tournaments.

It's more damning if your worst surface happens to be the one most prominently featured on tour, rather than clay.

Also, it's only in the past 12 or so years that HC's have made up over 50% of the tour. Before that, many of the fast court events were split between carpet and HC (from 1972-1998, carpet made up around 15-20% of the tour every year). Being top 10 in most HC titles should basically be a prerequisite to be an ATG in this era, since there are way, waaaaay more HC events than ever before. If the surface composition was the same from the 70's onward, you can bet players like Nastase, Newcombe, Smith, Courier and Laver (all of whom are right there with him in title count) would be ahead of Nadal in HC title count. Even with all this, Nadal is only 11th. 11th most titles won on the tours dominant surface, which makes up a higher % of all tournaments in his day than it ever has.


Surface breakdown found here:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/surfaceTimeline


(also, one would think Federer being FIRST in BOTH HC and Grass, by some distance, would supersede Nadal barely cracking the top 10 on grass and being outside the top 10 on HC. Guess not).

 

[octogon]

Nadal obviously isn't a surface specialist, and has won big on every other surface. But he gets criticised for being greater on one surface than any human being has ever been on any surface. It's truly bizarre.

 

[tennisaddict]

Nadal has 18 HC titles over 15 years which is like 60% of tour calendar ? He is well rounded ? LMAO

 

[Goosehead]

111 titles for jimbo ?. I thought atp claimed 109 ?..or are the atp stat boffins getting it wrong again LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

 

[octogon]

It's a pretty specious argument. Clay courts make up about 32% of the tour and 35% of all big tournaments, yet Nadal has won 70.6% of his titles on it. Only 30% of his tournament wins have been on the two surfaces that make up 65% of the tour and 71% of Tier 1 tournaments.

Federer has won 65 of his 95 titles on HC (68%) but HC constitutes about 55% of the tour and 65% of the big (majors, WTF, masters) tournaments.

It's more damning if your worst surface happens to be the one most prominently featured on tour, rather than clay.

Also, it's only in the past 12 or so years that HC's have made up over 50% of the tour. Before that, many of the fast court events were split between carpet and HC (from 1972-1998, carpet made up around 15-20% of the tour every year). Being top 10 in most HC titles should basically be a prerequisite to be an ATG in this era, since there are way, waaaaay more HC events than ever before. If the surface composition was the same from the 70's onward, you can bet players like Nastase, Newcombe, Smith, Courier and Laver (all of whom are right there with him in title count) would be ahead of Nadal in HC title count. Even with all this, Nadal is only 11th. 11th most titles won on the tours dominant surface, which makes up a higher % of all tournaments in his day than it ever has.


Surface breakdown found here:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/surfaceTimeline

Eh....why is it damning if Nadal has a preferred surface?

Hardcourts dominate the tour because they are relatively cheap and easy to maintain, compared to Clay and Grass.

That's it. No special tennis related reason. Having hardcourts as your preferred surface doesn't make you a better tennis player. It just means you lucked out that the ATP found the cheapest surface to lay down on courts across the year. It's pure dumb luck and economics, and nothing else. If clay was cheaper and easier to maintain, Federer would basically be screwed and nowhere near GOAT consideration.

If anything, it's a testament to Nadal's gifts as a player that he grew up on clay courts and it became his preferred surface, yet still managed to win several huge titles against all-time greats on his lesser surfaces. 2-1 to Nadal over Djokovic at the US Open and deafeating Prime Federer on Grass at Wimbledon says it all. Neither Djokovic nor Federer could take out a prime Nadal on the clay of Roland Garros.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

That's what it takes. No easy way out...the point of no return. All or nothing.

Yea Nadal has 4 hard court Slams and 2 on grass. That's 6 Slams so I wouldn't exactly call that a surface specialist either.

Djokovic was completely in that all or nothing mode when he went on that tear from W 2015 to RG 2016. No man, no law, no war could stop him.

 

[octogon]

Nadal has 18 HC titles over 15 years which is like 60% of tour calendar ? He is well rounded ? LMAO

He's gonna be in the top 10 of the open era for hardcourt titles won. probably by next year.

Remind me again when Federer is going to be in the top 10 for clay titles won in the open era? Y'know, since he's allegedlly the GOAT and everything

 

[NoleFam]

Nadal obviously isn't a surface specialist, and has won big on every other surface. But he gets criticised for being greater on one surface than any human being has ever been on any surface. It's truly bizarre.

Look at it as a compliment. Look how dominant this guy is where there is only 4 big clay titles played every year yet he has 32 of them over his career. That is unprecedented dominance on clay and his records won't be broken. I think it's almost impossible to break now so I wouldn't take his clay dominance as a negative.

 

[metsman]

This makes interesting reading. Nadal, often criticised as a surface specialist, is in the top 10 Open era for Clay Titles and Grass titles won. And only 2 titles away from being in the top 10 for Hardcourt wins.

Djokovic is in the top 10 for Hardcourt and top 10 for Grass.He's 3 titles from getting in the top 10 for Clay.

Federer is in the top 10 for Hardcourt and top 10 for Grass. He's 6 titles away from making it in the top 10 for Clay.

Djokovic and Nadal are almost mirror images of each other. Extremely dominant on one surface (Hard for Djoker, Clay for Nadal), very strong on each others favorite surface, and dead even on grass as top 10 open era grass courters.

Federer is dominant on Hard and Grass, but will never get in the top 10 for clay (unless he decides to spend a season or two in South America to vulture some clay court titles).

Nadal is pretty much guaranteed to end up top 10 in all 3 relevant surfaces (Carpet is an obsolete surface for top guys today). Djokovic should end up there as well (though his form and Nadal's clay dominance, and Thiem's increasing danger on clay may make it harder than it seems). And Federer will only be top 10 for Hard and Grass.

There is an argument that Nadal is the most well rounded by surface, then Djokovic (who is as much a "specialist" as Nadal, just not quite as succesful), then Federer.

LMAOOOOOO. Can you count???

 

[Deleted member 77403]

double post.

so I will just post this.

 

[NoleFam]

Djokovic was completely in that all or nothing mode when he went on that tear from W 2015 to RG 2016. No man, no law, no war could stop him.

He just went into zen mode and refused to be denied.

 

[octogon]

LMAOOOOOO. Can you count???

Yep, I can count that Federer is never getting in the top 10 open era for clay titles won, while Djokovic probably will (for Clay) and Nadal definitely will (for Hard).

W-E-L-L R-O-U-N-D-E-D.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

He just went into zen mode and refused to be denied.

He went full on Rambo on the tour and blew up the competition.

 

[metsman]

Eh....why is it damning if Nadal has a preferred surface?

Hardcourts dominate the tour because they are relatively cheap and easy to maintain, compared to Clay and Grass.

That's it. No special tennis related reason. Having hardcourts as your preferred surface doesn't make you a better tennis player. It just means you lucked out that the ATP found the cheapest surface to lay down on courts across the year. It's pure dumb luck and economics, and nothing else. If clay was cheaper and easier to maintain, Federer would basically be screwed and nowhere near GOAT consideration.

If anything, it's a testament to Nadal's gifts as a player that he grew up on clay courts and it became his preferred surface, yet still managed to win several huge titles against all-time greats on his lesser surfaces. 2-1 to Nadal over Djokovic at the US Open and deafeating Prime Federer on Grass at Wimbledon says it all. Neither Djokovic nor Federer could take out a prime Nadal on the clay of Roland Garros.

Why are you pretending that hard courts are Federer's best surface? If there were 3 grass masters a year and 0 clay masters, Federer would likely have close to 400 weeks at #1 and I shudder to think about how few Nadal would have. If you want to bring up prevalence of HC, do it when talking about Djokovic, because hard is actually his best surface.

Federer's best surface is grass and he utterly mastered all HC conditions due to his versatility, #2 player on slow hard, #1 on fast hard, overall HC GOAT, and he has a slight chance of finishing his career as arguable slow hard GOAT as well, something which Nadal miserably failed to do (be an ATG on another surface besides his best). Historically speaking, Federer on clay is around as good as Nadal on any surface off clay.

 

[NoleFam]

double post.

so I will just post this.

 

[metsman]

Yep, I can count that Federer is never getting in the top 10 open era for clay titles won, while Djokovic probably will (for Clay) and Nadal definitely will (for Hard).

W-E-L-L R-O-U-N-D-E-D.

Just to make sure, kindly count how many people are above Nadal in the grass list and tell me what that number is. Hint, it's a lot more than 10.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

 

[tennisfanboy]

Djokovic was completely in that all or nothing mode when he went on that tear from W 2015 to RG 2016. No man, no law, no war could stop him.

Agree! Djokovic was too hot to handle. Federer still managed to stop him at Cincinnati though and RR of the ATP finals with a HTH of 2-4 during that period. Not too bad imo when Djoker was going bonkers.

 

[NoleFam]

Hahahaha! I remember this scene.

 

[octogon]

Just to make sure, kindly count how many people are above Nadal in the grass list and tell me what that number is. Hint, it's a lot more than 10.

Don't matter. If Fed were in the top 10 for clay and there were several players above him in a tied position, I wouldn't hold that against him. It's not his problem. Being in the top 10 is what matters, even if there are a bunch of ties that mean more than 10 players are in it.

I'd simply give Fed credit for being in the top 10. Which unfortunately, I'll never be able to do.

 

[NoleFam]

He went full on Rambo on the tour and blew up the competition.

Rambo: First Blood Part 2...

 

[metsman]

Being in the top 10 is what matters, even if there are a bunch of ties that mean more than 10 players are in it.

Read this line very slowly to yourself a few times, and then let me know what is wrong with it. Take your time.

Wonder if VB offers remedial grade school.