Peak Federer is the second greatest clay court player of all time? Agree?

Where does Peak Federer lie on the clay all time list?

  • 1st

    Votes: 8 7.2%

  • 2nd

    Votes: 11 9.9%

  • 3rd

    Votes: 14 12.6%

  • 4th

    Votes: 17 15.3%

  • 5-7

    Votes: 34 30.6%

  • 8-10

    Votes: 18 16.2%

  • Outside the top 10

    Votes: 9 8.1%
  • Total voters
    111
WildRevolver said:
Rome and Madrid are not RG, where old Rog turned prime Novak away with finger wagging ease.
Click to expand...

Soderling beat Rafa in 09 and then lost to Rafa in 2010
Federer beat Nole in 11 and then lost to Nole in 2012

As per your logic Soderling is the BOAT on clay, no?

In reality Novak was at his absolute peak at the Roland Garros in 2013 when he took on Rafa in the semi finals, that is the version of Djokovic which will comprehensively beat all versions of Federer and possibly Nole's ceiling version.

Glorifying 2011 because it suits Federer is cheating the readers.
 
Marco Rotim said:
Mr Borg and his arch rival Vilas used to have 50-60 shot rallies, longest rally they ever had was probably an 86 shot one.

Are you sure that Mr Federer is capable of having such cruel rallies on clay before being hailed as the second best clay courter of all time?
Click to expand...
Those rallies between Vilas and Borg were mostly boring, with little variety and player movement. They did not compare with Nadal vs Novak, Nadal vs Federer or Novak vs Federer.
 
REKX said:
As a Federer and Nadal fan, I have enjoyed their styles of play more than any other players. Both are attacking in their own way, it’s no wonder they produced matches like Wimbledon 2008.

I think peak Federer beats any other clay court player in history apart from Nadal. He has an incredible record there and without Nadal he would have won multiple French Opens.

I think the Federer from around 2006-2009 is an unbelievably high level. Barring the final of 2008 where Nadal had the mental advantage and 2008 Nadal being the best anyone has played on clay in history, Federer was beating everyone on clay - and in great style. The 2011 match against Djokovic showed that a past prime Federer beats a prime Djokovic.

Federer’s high spin forehand (although not as high as Nadal’s) has been a great shot on clay. And his speed and movement was unbelievable during those years. I know it’s different eras, but Federer beats Borg (who is widely considered the second greatest of all time on clay) at Roland Garros. Federer is technically much better than Borg in almost every aspect, he wins quite easily. (Peak Federer we are talking about here). And he did manage to take sets of Nadal during those years.

Do you agree?
Click to expand...
Comparing players from different eras is difficult (players have become more athletic, evolution of technique, racquets and strings…), but in a way you may be right. At least it’s true that without Nadal, Federer would probably have a few more FO.
but I’m not sure that comparing Federer to Borg, for example, does really make sense. If you push the reasoning, a player like Borg would be relegated behind more modern but less memorable players who have not had the same influence on the game.
Just considering the level of play, I would rate peak Kuerten above peak Federer on clay.
 
Fed is a sensational clay court player, as you'd need to be to get to French Open semis and beyond 8 times in your career. Second greatest of all time is stretching it though.
 
He’s 4th or so behind Rafa, Borg and Djokovic.

the arguments that he’s a better clay player than Djokovic have always been cringe.
 
WildRevolver said:
The best version of Novak fell to a past-his-prime Roger on that fateful 2011 afternoon. All that one needs to know.
Click to expand...
By this same stupid logic there are tons of players better than peak Federer. Players get upset all the time. Tennis isn’t played on paper. But over a career you have all the results you need to judge and Djokovic is clearly ahead of Fed on clay.
 
Fed is probably on par with Bruguera on clay. The multiple RG finals appearances is due to the field lacking on clay for many years (Most past clay greats would have multiple RG finals if they play in the 2000-2010s LOL) . Hes definitely below Nadal, Guga, Djokovic, Courier, Lendl, Wilander, Borg, Vilas, Muster (at his best) on clay. Its not even up for debate. Nothing wrong with that though. Bruguera was awesome on clay. But the other guys are just a level higher. Very consistent Fed was on clay though in his prime
 
My top 10 on Clay

01 - Nadal
02 - Borg
03 - Kuerten
04 - Djokovic
05 - Lendl
06 - Wilander
07 - Vilas
08 - Bruguera
09 - Courier
10 - Tied between Federer and Muster.

The top 9 has won at least 2 clay slams each and have great win% at FO vs top 10, higher than Federer, more clay titles too, all of these facts cannot be ignored.

The 10th Spot would be Roger Federer vs Thomas Muster who have won 1 slam each, Muster has had an amazing 1995 so logic would suggest that he has a greater peak.

However Roger did make more finals here, beat Novak in an year when Rafa was losing to him, so I will call it is a tie.
 
Last edited:
Sampras-Bruguera 1993 said:
Fed is probably on par with Bruguera on clay. The multiple RG finals appearances is due to the field lacking on clay for many years (Most past clay greats would have multiple RG finals if they play in the 2000-2010s LOL) . Hes definitely below Nadal, Guga, Djokovic, Courier, Lendl, Wilander, Borg, Vilas, Muster (at his best) on clay. Its not even up for debate. Nothing wrong with that though. Bruguera was awesome on clay. But the other guys are just a level higher. Very consistent Fed was on clay though in his prime
Click to expand...
Bruguera got better record on clay than Courier.

Bruguera 2 FO, 1 FO final, 2 masters, 13 titles on clay

Courier 2 FO, 1 FO final, 2 masters, 5 titles on clay.

In my opinion, on clay Bruguera better than Courier.

As an overall player Courier far superior, on account of several masters on hard.
 
Marco Rotim said:
My top 10 on Clay

01 - Nadal
02 - Borg
03 - Kuerten
04 - Djokovic
05 - Lendl
06 - Wilander
07 - Courier
08 - Vilas
09 - Bruguera
10 - Tied between Federer and Muster.

The top 9 has won at least 2 clay slams each and have great win% at FO vs top 10, higher than Federer, more clay titles too, all of these facts cannot be ignored.

The 10th Spot would be Roger Federer vs Thomas Muster who have won 1 slam each, Muster has had an amazing 1995 so logic would suggest that he has a greater peak.

However Roger did make more finals here, beat Novak in an year when Rafa was losing to him, so I will call it is a tie.
Click to expand...
Vilas got to be on top of Courier.

Vilas has 49 titles on clay.

Courier has 5 titles on clay.

Advantage Vilas
 
vex said:
By this same stupid logic there are tons of players better than peak Federer. Players get upset all the time. Tennis isn’t played on paper. But over a career you have all the results you need to judge and Djokovic is clearly ahead of Fed on clay.
Click to expand...
On one special afternoon, within the savage year of our lord 2011, ancient logic such as the one you spout was bucked. For the tennis Gods declared: Ole’ Rog > Prime Novak, bud.
 
I put Federer 5th. Behind Nadal, Borg, Kurten, Novak. Federer did beat Novak in 2011 but Novak beating Nadal twice at the FO overcomes that to me. Guga beat Federer with pretty much one hip in 2004.
 
Sampras-Bruguera 1993 said:
Fed is probably on par with Bruguera on clay. The multiple RG finals appearances is due to the field lacking on clay for many years. Hes definitely below Nadal, Guga, Djokovic, Courier, Lendl, Wilander, Borg, Vilas, Muster (at his best) on clay. Its not even up for debate
Click to expand...
Marco Rotim said:
My top 10 on Clay

01 - Nadal
02 - Borg
03 - Kuerten
04 - Djokovic
05 - Lendl
06 - Wilander
07 - Vilas
08 - Bruguera
09 - Courier
10 - Tied between Federer and Muster.

The top 9 has won at least 2 clay slams each and have great win% at FO vs top 10, higher than Federer, more clay titles too, all of these facts cannot be ignored.

The 10th Spot would be Roger Federer vs Thomas Muster who have won 1 slam each, Muster has had an amazing 1995 so logic would suggest that he has a greater peak.

However Roger did make more finals here, beat Novak in an year when Rafa was losing to him, so I will call it is a tie.
Click to expand...
Are you discussing the level of play or palmares? Again, it's very tricky to compare eras considering the huge evolution of the game (players who have become more athletic, evolution of technique, racquets and strings blablabla…). But if you want to venture into this... Federer is to the least above your no 5 to 10. Your number 5 Lendl has an excellent track record at RG and was a great champion, but I don't see one area or shot where Federer would not be superior to him. Please do not tell me the OHBH, Lendl would have suffered against Nadal FH just like Federer. Take a look at old videos of Lendl, Bruguera, Wilander... Federer is in another galaxy. I'm not disrespecting older champions, actually I was a big fan of Wilander when I was a kid. It's just that 1) tennis has seriously progressed (not always for the better in terms of show but clearly it did as far as efficiency goes) and 2) Federer was extremely good even on clay, his problem was Nadal (by far the best clay player in history both in terms of palmares and level achieved).
 
BillKid said:
Are you discussing the level of play or palmares? Again, it's very tricky to compare eras considering the huge evolution of the game (players who have become more athletic, evolution of technique, racquets and strings blablabla…). But if you want to venture into this... Federer is to the least above your no 5 to 10. Your number 5 Lendl has an excellent track record at RG and was a great champion, but I don't see one area or shot where Federer would not be superior to him. Please do not tell me the OHBH, Lendl would have suffered against Nadal FH just like Federer. Take a look at old videos of Lendl, Bruguera, Wilander... Federer is in another galaxy. I'm not disrespecting older champions, actually I was a big fan of Wilander when I was a kid. It's just that 1) tennis has seriously progressed (not always for the better in terms of show but clearly it did as far as efficiency goes) and 2) Federer was extremely good even on clay, his problem was Nadal (by far the best clay player in history both in terms of palmares and level achieved).
Click to expand...

While there is no way to accurately compare levels of players across eras, it is safe to say that Federer will be judged on what he did in his era. Federer's legacy cannot be self aggrandized by the strength of Nadal's resume, for example Federer aged 23 in 2005 failed to beat a 19 year old rookie Nadal when he clearly should have. So Fed's defeats have strengthened Nadal's resume and you are using that resume to prove that Fed in Nad's absence would be greater than Lendl, not acceptable. For the record, Federer even lost to Robin Soderling the second time he faced him in a clay slam. Federer in 2004 was straight setted by an injured Kuerten in an year when Fed was having an exceptional record. How high can a peak of someone like that be even 5 years later when he won the title?


Lendl's Games won% to Roland Garros in his title winning years was 64%, 71% and 60% respectively while Federer's in 2009 is 57%. Why is Federer lagging in these statistics if he is a better player on that surface:? Shouldn't the Games won% be high for a particular year if the level is high ? Like Nadal's is 75% for 2008, something like that, no?
 
No. Even talking subjective peaks there is no way he is above Borg. Heck I would make the argument Borg is atleast on par with Nadal in subjective peak level, but Nadal is far ahead in greatness as he has the longevity and achievements far over Borg now.
 
Marco Rotim said:
Federer aged 23 in 2005 failed to beat a 19 year old rookie Nadal when he clearly should have.

For the record, Federer even lost to Robin Soderling the second time he faced him in a clay slam. Federer in 2004 was straight setted by an injured Kuerten in an year when Fed was having an exceptional record. How high can a peak of someone like that be even 5 years later when he won the title?
Click to expand...
For the record, Lendl lost in 1988 against Svensson and in 1989 against a 17 years old rookie named Chang (so let's talk about Federer being beaten by a 19 year old Nadal) in a match that was all but glorious…
Anyway, this is the kind of discussion that never ends. I consider Federer to have produced superior tennis to Lendl, including on clay. Any of the greatest clay court champions, like Lendl, would have a much less impressive record if they had to deal with a player as strong as Nadal for years. It's pretty obvious I think.
That said, I recognize that ranking players from such different eras is quite subjective.
 
LOL at the Fed haters.

Using Kuerten beat Federer in 2004 to lower his ranking on ATG on clay, but
don't enhance it when Federer beat peak Djokovic in 2011 (SIGH...)
 
Omega_7000 said:
Lets be honest.....only reason Djokovic won RG is because he got the benefit of facing Nadal way past his prime and also the benefit of being a year younger.

Federer had to face peak Nadal and is 5 years older....not to mention the matchup disadvantage.
Click to expand...
8-B
 
Borg, Lendl, Kuerten and Djokovic are all better than him, even peak for peak.

WildRevolver said:
The best version of Novak fell to a past-his-prime Roger on that fateful 2011 afternoon. All that one needs to know.
Click to expand...

And the best version of Tsonga beat the same Federer on that fateful 2011 afternoon on grass, where he is better than on clay. All that one needs to know. Peak Tsonga >> Peak Djoko.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

REKX
Federer is one of the greatest clay court players of all time
2 3
Replies
108
Views
7K
NoleFam
NoleFam
Megafanoftennis100
  • Poll Poll
Which is more likely, peak Djokovic defeating peak Federer at Wimbledon or peak Djokovic defeating peak Nadal at Roland Garros?
2 3
Replies
129
Views
5K
BorgTheGOAT
BorgTheGOAT
jorel
Rafa- The Greatest Clay Courter of All Time
2 3
Replies
119
Views
8K
Mustard
Mustard
A
The greatest clay court player of all time. . .
Replies
17
Views
2K
Rabbit
Rabbit
M
Greatest Player of All Time - Three Tournaments Played
Replies
27
Views
3K
THUNDERVOLLEY
THUNDERVOLLEY
Back
Top