Peak Federer is the second greatest clay court player of all time? Agree?
- Thread starter REKX
- Start date
T
TheNachoMan
Guest
Only Fed can win 1 RG and no Rome titles but still be considered to be one of the best ever on clay. lol
But but but hypothetical Fed wins every match. So he must have a winning record against all other clay courters
WildRevolver
Hall of Fame
Tsonga is not an all-time great. Metrics show that in GS matches between all time greats, the result carries more weight. Thus, Ole Man Roger’s clear advantage over pinnacle Novak.
Well if we use that logic Gaga is better than Federer so Fed can only be 3rd greatest claycourter. Federer was peak in 2004 winning 3 slams and only losing to old past-it Guga in straight sets at FO 64 64 64.
KidCharlemagne98
New User
Federer is my favourite of the Big 3 you know (my favourite player is Agassi and I think he also had arguments for the top 10-12).
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Telling people here, over and over, that "level" and "peak" are abstractions - and that you can only play who's in front of you, which doesn't necessarily translate into other, hypothetical match-ups - has proved completely useless over the years. All I can do at this point is sigh. Even supposing Federer would beat Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Muster, Kuerten (he actually lost to him), or even Bruguera, "level" is not a category that can be used to determine such hierarchies, only results matter. So no, losing to Nadal in countless clay finals does NOT give you extra French Opens, and winning countless Masters 1000s on clay does NOT give you extra French Opens either - Roland-Garros remains the greatest achievement. If the goal of tennis was to achieve the highest "level", the sport would make no sense, as there's no way to ascertain such a thing and it can't possibly be registered in record books.
In a nutshell, no, he's perhaps top 8 on clay, but very far from the second or even the third position. He's clearly above other one-time Roland-Garros winners though (excluding Muster), such as Chang, Agassi, Costa, Kafelnikov and Noah. This should be more than satisfactory for any Federer fan.
In a nutshell, no, he's perhaps top 8 on clay, but very far from the second or even the third position. He's clearly above other one-time Roland-Garros winners though (excluding Muster), such as Chang, Agassi, Costa, Kafelnikov and Noah. This should be more than satisfactory for any Federer fan.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 791948
Guest
The only thing we know for a fact about the all-time clay ranking is that Nadal, Federer and Djokovic took tennis to a whole new level at Roland Garros.
Nobody has ever been better on clay than those 3, and you can put Federer and Djokovic at 2 and 3, and most likely Federer is the number 2 because of what happened at 2011 RG
Nobody has ever been better on clay than those 3, and you can put Federer and Djokovic at 2 and 3, and most likely Federer is the number 2 because of what happened at 2011 RG
Last edited by a moderator:
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
No. Ludicrous.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
The only thing we know for a fact about the all-time clay ranking is that Nadal, Federer and Djokovic took tennis to a whole new level at Roland Garros.
Nobody has ever been better on clay than those 3, and you can put Federer and Djokovic at 2 and 3, and most likely Federer is the number 2 because of what happened at 2011 RG
Determining who's the best is based on actual achievements, not hypothetical levels.
Where is the trophy for level? Where is the award for "highest peak"?
It's also a self-defeating premise: if you accept it, any player in the future who wins RG even once will automatically be "greater" than Federer on clay, because, according to this logic, modern players will always develop a higher "level" than past players.
You can't claim that the history of tennis is an ever-ascending line that peaks at the big 3 and then suddenly descends just because you want the big 3 to have the "highest level of all time", that's absolutely nonsensical.
D
Deleted member 791948
Guest
It not hypothetical, we saw it in 2011, Federer beat the best version of Djokovic on clay at Roland Garros
Modern players are nowhere near Sampras on grass, so that's not always true.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
It not hypothetical, we saw it in 2011, Federer beat the best version of Djokovic on clay at Roland Garros
Modern players are nowhere near Sampras on grass, so that's not always true.
Again, where is the trophy for "beating the best version of player X"?
How do you know 2011 is the best version of Djokovic on clay?
How do you know how Sampras would fare against modern players on grass? And which grass, 90s grass or current grass? I mean, there's just no way to know, all you can do is hypothesise.
Again: how do we quantify level?
Life is not Dragon Ball, people don't have "levels", they play how they play on the day against a specific opponent, and that's all there is to it.
I swear this crap about peaks and levels is tantamount to religious belief: totally untestable and unfalsifiable, you can shift the goalposts whenever you want because there's simply no way to prove any of it, etc.
REKX
Rookie
Federer 2004 was not peak on clay, not even close.
He changed his strokes, hitting less flatter and adding a lot more spin on his forehand and backhand.
His clay peak started in 2005, with 2007 probably the best.
I’m talking about Peak Federer here, at his very best. I don’t think Kuerten would have beaten a 2007 Federer at RG. Federer’s game became too dominant - no one apart from Nadal could beat him (and that was only on clay).
I think Federer beats Borg on clay. Borg didn’t have Nadal during his era or he may not have won any grand slams.
Taking Nadal into consideration is a massive factor.
If we’re talking longevity then Djokovic is clearly better than Federer at RG but if we’re talking peak (Federer from 05-09 say), then Federer has it.
Marco Rotim
Semi-Pro
He is not above Djokovic on Clay, not even on par.
Reasons:
- Djokovic did beat him in 2012 in a rematch to their 2011 match and this win was in straight sets.
- Djokovic has won the french open 2 times and made more finals than Federer here, so objectively Djokovic is ahead.
- Djokovic has won the most important clay masters, Roma Italia 6 times while Federer has not won it even once.
- Djokovic has won Monte Carlo 2 times while Federer has not won it even once.
- Djokovic has beaten Nadal 2 times at the Roland Garros while Federer has beaten Nadal 0 times, this despite Federer in his mid 20s having the opportunity to beat Nadal twice when Nadal was a Teenager.
- Djokovic objectively has a higher win% on clay than Federer (80% vs 76%), has a higher Roland Garros win% (84% vs 81%), has a higher % vs the top 10 at the roland garros (50% to 40%), higher % vs top 10 overall (57% to 52%) etc etc
Safe to say that Federer matches up well to Djokovic and so their H2Hs are tied but Nadal acts a tie breaker in this scenario who completely tilts the balance in the favor of Djokovic, 2 handed backhand proves more effective over the 1 handed backhand on clay.
Rorano_Fedalovic
Semi-Pro
couple days till wimby and we're discussing another peak fed / generational comparison / RG thread;
Somebody please please hand out double bagels to both Novak and Rafa on the way to winning the damn thing; enough is enough.
Somebody please please hand out double bagels to both Novak and Rafa on the way to winning the damn thing; enough is enough.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
My mistake, Djokovic shouldn't have been listed there.
Already corrected it.
But again, I value achievements above the mystification that is "level", and tennis is about trophies, not head-to-head confrontations.
So Djokovic is above Federer, in my estimation, because of reasons 2, 3 and 4 you listed above. That's more than enough for me.
Last edited:
REKX
Rookie
More accomplished on clay? Perhaps goes to Djokovic.
We’re talking peak for peak. 2012 wasn’t a rematch, Federer wasn’t quite at the same levelthen. Peak for peak Federer has Djokovic.
A 2007 Federer beats any Djokovic at RG - and 2011 Djokovic was, as people say, almost invincible. That match should tell you where a 2007 Federer would be against Djokovic. I mean, how do you think it would go?
Marco Rotim
Semi-Pro
How did Federer lose to Murray at Cincinnati Open in 2006 if he was invincible? Is young Murray better than Peak Federer?
Why is 2012 Federer below 2011 Federer on clay when statistically Federer having a win% of 75% on clay in 2011 while he had 83% on clay in 2012 ?
Why did Federer lose to Fillipo Volandri in 2007 if he was so invincible ?
Djokovic's roland garros peak was in 2013 when he pushed Nadal to 5 sets and almost won the match, 2011 was not Djokovic's clay peak.
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Plus: Borg beat Lendl who beat Agassi who beat Federer.
NonP
Legend
LMFAO at the mugs thinking Fred would own Ivan at RG. Hey kids, Lendl is the only man of the OE not named Borg or Nadal to win a whopping 65% or more of his games on clay for a whole season (unless you count Courier in the '92 CC season proper), and he did it twice. Not to mention he pushed Borg to 5 in his 1st Slam F when he was recovering from a back strain. You're deluding yourself if you think anyone other than (net-rushing) Mats or Guga would get the better of Ivan in their career FO H2H. ('92 Courier and '93/94 Bruguera would also be worthy opponents, but that's why I added that "career." Kuerten is an admittedly iffy case due to the specter of injuries.)
And there's actually a strong case to be made that TMF > Djoker on dirt peak to peak, but as I keep reminding U jokers what matters in the end is not how high but how long/often, and that's where Novak holds the decisive advantage. But his average topspin and Fred's relatively inferior consistency/shot tolerance ultimately make them also-rans to the true dirtmeisters.
This is the correct ranking of FO champs since the mid-'70s:
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
Follow the links (where available) to learn more about each one. You're welcome.
And there's actually a strong case to be made that TMF > Djoker on dirt peak to peak, but as I keep reminding U jokers what matters in the end is not how high but how long/often, and that's where Novak holds the decisive advantage. But his average topspin and Fred's relatively inferior consistency/shot tolerance ultimately make them also-rans to the true dirtmeisters.
This is the correct ranking of FO champs since the mid-'70s:
Is Federer considered an ATG on clay?
Cuz Nadal isn't a clay court specialist lol he's an elite all-court player who happens to be a god on clay. Same with Borg, Wilander, and Lendl - clay was their best surfaces but they were all elite elsewhere too. Once you get down to the Bruguera's and Muster's of the world then yeah those guys...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
Follow the links (where available) to learn more about each one. You're welcome.
Marco Rotim
Semi-Pro
LMFAO at the mugs thinking Fred would own Ivan at RG. Hey kids, Lendl is the only man of the OE not named Borg or Nadal to win a whopping 65% or more of his games on clay for a whole season (unless you count Courier in the '92 CC season proper), and he did it twice. Not to mention he pushed Borg to 5 in his 1st Slam F when he was recovering from a back strain. You're deluding yourself if you think anyone other than (net-rushing) Mats or Guga would get the better of Ivan in their career FO H2H. ('92 Courier and '93/94 Bruguera would also be worthy opponents, but that's why I added that "career." Kuerten is an admittedly iffy case due to the specter of injuries.)
And there's actually a strong case to be made that TMF > Djoker on dirt peak to peak, but as I keep reminding U jokers what matters in the end is not how high but how long/often, and that's where Novak holds the decisive advantage. But his average topspin and Fred's relatively inferior consistency/shot tolerance ultimately make them also-rans to the true dirtmeisters.
This is the correct ranking of FO champs since the mid-'70s:
Is Federer considered an ATG on clay?
Cuz Nadal isn't a clay court specialist lol he's an elite all-court player who happens to be a god on clay. Same with Borg, Wilander, and Lendl - clay was their best surfaces but they were all elite elsewhere too. Once you get down to the Bruguera's and Muster's of the world then yeah those guys...
Follow the links (where available) to learn more about each one. You're welcome.
Valid points made by @martinezownsclay here in your link @NonP
NonP
Legend
Not to mention those old champs would make whatever adjustments required of any era. Seriously, anyone with a trained eye would need go all the way back to Tilden's and Lenglen's heyday to say the old-timers would need more than a couple weeks' practice to catch up, but even that's not a fair comparison 'cause you're in effect giving the more recent players a head start.
With enough training any ATG would be great in any era, period.
Not sure you're just doing a high-5 or taking issue with something I said, but FYI I do agree that the current CC field is lackluster:
90s clay
You jokers are too much. Almost didn't open this thread cuz I thought it was about you-know-who, LOL. "Glad" I did, I guess. Before I educate y'all these two posts are more or less on target: I mean sure if we're going to start with the premise that the three highest peaks in the decade are...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
And here's an overview of this CC season (from a group convo):
Basically Novak has been almost single-handedly keeping the last decade or so from turning into a complete farce. That may not be such a bad thing if you're a Big 2/3 groupie, but for true fans of the game? Zzzzzzzz....
Omega_7000
Legend
Be honest with yourself....You think Djokovic would beat peak Nadal at RG if he was 5 years older than him?
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
LOL at their even being 6 votes for 1st even when we literally saw peak Federer be beaten over and over by Nadal.
T
TheNachoMan
Guest
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
Yeah, I'm sure one match is a big enough sample to judge.
What about the following year, when Djokovic won in straights?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Neither was that great the following year.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
Federer and Djokovic are somewhat at the same level, but I give Djokovic the edge.
1-Nadal
2-Borg
3-Kuerten
4-Lendl
5-Vilas
6-Djokovic
7-Federer
8-Muster
Something like that.
People putting Federer above Borg are ridiculous. Borg won RG losing fewer games than Nadal.
Peak Djokovic doesn't fail to beat pre-peak Nadal in 2005 as Federer did.
1-Nadal
2-Borg
3-Kuerten
4-Lendl
5-Vilas
6-Djokovic
7-Federer
8-Muster
Something like that.
People putting Federer above Borg are ridiculous. Borg won RG losing fewer games than Nadal.
Peak Djokovic doesn't fail to beat pre-peak Nadal in 2005 as Federer did.
NonP
Legend
IIRC you were one of the more reasonable posters in the old days so don't take this the wrong way, but whether Novak would upset prime Rafa at RG if he belonged to an older generation is irrelevant (and FYI he wouldn't). The fact of the matter is that Djoker has been a serious FO contender for almost twice as long as Fred, so he was able to take advantage of those 2 lapses from Bull vs. 1 for Fed. That's not "luck," but hard work paying off.
I know Vilas is your countryman but #6 is way too high for him. '77 RG wasn't a legit major, and while I do think Willy would likely eke out a FO regardless of era so would Djoker, Fed and Muster.
2 > 1 unless you've got very good reasons to think otherwise. Ergo Courier, Bruguera and Djokovic > Vilas.
That "pre-peak Nadal" still won a dominant 65.1% of his games on clay, which is at least 2% higher than Novak ever managed and vs. a strong CC field to boot (arguably the last one, in fact).
Simply put Djoker ain't beating no non-2009/15/16/21/22 version of Bull at RG. That's not a knock against him, cuz only a precious few could.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
Was Nadal in 2021 much worse than in 2005? I feel like if Nadal had won that match and tournament you might be including him with the other years he can't beat him. 2015 sure, he was in poor form, but in 2021 he wasn't. In fact the 2020 demolition was less than a year away. I think a peak Djokovic like 2012, 2013, 2015 or 2016 can beat 2005 Nadal. I think Nadal in 2008, 2010, 2012, 2017 is untouchable for anyone (we can discuss Borg but difference in era, technology, etc make it impossible). Then years like 2007, 2018, 2019, 2020 he likely wins against anyone too. 2013, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2011, 2021 for instance are years where he is beatable for some players. Djokovic beat him in 2021 and was very close to doing so in 2013. I think the same could have happened if a strong Djokovic faced Nadal in 2005. Yeah, he was obviously very good, but not quite the unbeatable peak we knew later. In 2005 he was very close to losing to Coria Bo5, and Djokovic is obviously a better player. And even in 2006 he almost loses to Federer on clay Bo5, and he always did better vs Federer than vs Djokovic. I think a peak Djokovic takes advantage of a pre-prime Nadal better than Federer did.
Regarding Vilas, he has some impressive records and streaks on the surface. He only has one FO, but he lost two finals to Borg, in another era he could have won multiple titles there I think, granted he doesn't play in the Nadal era.
TennisManiac
Hall of Fame
I don't agree.
T
TheNachoMan
Guest
Fed fans ignore RG 2012. It never happened.
Thriller
Hall of Fame
Laver wouldn't win a single slam from the mid 90s onwards no matter how hard he trained.
He was 5ft 8.
davidbowie103
New User
Something like 7th or 8th.
I'd put Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander,Djokovic and Bruguera over him. A case for him being 7th be made replacing Bruguera if you think that his Finals top Bruguera's 1 extra slam. No way he escapes a deficit of 2 slams so yeah, no chance of being top 5.
Peak argument is subject to deep analysis and it's 'irrelevant' in the discussion of 'greatest'.
I'd put Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander,Djokovic and Bruguera over him. A case for him being 7th be made replacing Bruguera if you think that his Finals top Bruguera's 1 extra slam. No way he escapes a deficit of 2 slams so yeah, no chance of being top 5.
Peak argument is subject to deep analysis and it's 'irrelevant' in the discussion of 'greatest'.
NonP
Legend
A 5% difference in GW% is indeed huge so yeah, Bull in '21 was clearly worse in '05. Keep in mind we're talking whole seasons/fields, not just RG, and '05 had FOUR legit FO contenders in Bull, Fred, Gaudio and Coria vs. last year's 3 in Djoker, Tsitsipas and geriatric Bull. That was in fact among the better CC seasons in the Big 3 era, but not strong enough to challenge '05.
Most of the time 60% isn't quite enough to fend off an elite opponent on dirt - FYI that's about what Sampras and Murray managed in '93/94 and '15 respectively - and we saw what happened last year. This one's Novak was a big downgrade, winning just 57.6% (262/455) vs. last season's 61.5% (343/558), and while you could chalk that up to lack of match play (due to his idiotic refusal to get jabbed, yes) I don't think anyone who saw followed the last 3 CC seasons would argue '20 Bull was anything like '21 or '22.
And FYI '15 Rafa actually won just 58.3% in the CC season proper, so he was if anything even worse than his last two versions. Doubt '21 or '22 Bull loses in straights to '15 Novak who as you know was surprisingly lethargic in the F vs. Stan.
No one-FOer posted such high GW%s as Vilas barring (peak) Muster, which is why I say he'd likely eke out a title in any era. But multiple is pushing it. His records vs. Borg and Wilander aren't great and ATGs like Mats, Ivan, Jim, Sergi and Guga would still be waiting for him regardless of era. And no matter what other one-timer you swap with him Willy would still have to deal with the rest of Noah, Chang, Gomez, Muster, Kafelnikov, Moya, Dre, Costa, Ferrero, Gaudio, Fred and Stan, most of whom really brought their A game during their run. Oh and let's not forget other genuine contenders who fell short.
That's how difficult it is to win a major on your weakest surface, and how wrong the teenyboppers are when they say Fred or Novak would be winning 3-5 FOs easily sans Nadal. Unless you think Villas is a class above these two he's unlikely to fare much better.
That's likely his current height. In his heyday he was a little above 5'9".
Anyhoo I don't buy that shorter players can't dominate again. It wasn't so long ago that 5'9" Rios and 5'10" Hewitt became the world #1 (though Marcelo in reality never overtook Pistol or Rafter), and even now Schwartzman on return gives the likes of Djokovic, Murray and Nadal a run for their $$$. Ditto Ferrer and Coria, and Rocket was better than all of 'em as well as a proven champ. Hardly far-fetched to think he'd do much better even today.
D
Deleted member 762343
Guest
Yes, being an ATG gives you a mystical energy which makes losses to other ATGs extra meaningful.
Marco Rotim
Semi-Pro
I checked the French Open GW% per year for some years
1994 - Bruguera has 63.98% which is big
1993 - Bruguera has 68.69% which is Nadalesque numbers
1992 - Jim Courier has 67.36% which is Nadalesque too
1991 - Jim Couriuer has 60.3% which is nor that big but I see that Bruguera who got out in the second round has 69.39% while Agassi the loser has 62.83%
What do these statistics say? Does it means that had Bruguera reached the final then he would have beaten Courier? Why does Agassi have higher numbers and yet lost?
In 1990 - Agassi again has 63% but he loses the final to Andres Gomez who has 61%, why?
1989 - Chang with only 60%, so is he a weak champ ?
1986- Mr Lendl had a magnificent 71.1%, so he should smoke Djokovic and Federer, no? @NonP
1985 - Lendl had 66% but Wilander had a 62% and he still beat him.
1984 - Lendl had 64%
1983 - Noah had 67%
1982- Wilander had just 58% but he beat Vilas who had a 68% GW% in that tourney. Why ? @NonP
1981 - Borg 71%
1980 - Borg 76%
1979 - Borg 64.73%
1978 - Borg 79.87%
1977 - Vilas 73.58%
Borg's 1974 & 1975 numbers are in the 62-63% range I guess, considerably less than his 78 onwards.
Federer in 2005 had 60.45% and he lost all the same to Nadal who was almost 65%
Federer in 2006 had 60.2%
Federer in 2007 had 58%
Federer in 2008 had 57%
Federer in 2009 had 57.85%
Federer in 2011 had 58.22%
So I am guessing that Federer is below all the clay courters of the 70s and 80s according to the percentages and Borg is on par with Nadal ? But then even Vilas's numbers in 1977 seem Nadalesque., yet some posters in this post are saying that Borg, Vilas and others of the past decades were slower than Federer in footspeed and power. Why?
Would Federer's late 50s GW% magically rise to mid 60s while playing Borg-Vilas-Lendl and will their 70+% come down to late 50s or early 60s while playing a Federer assuming Federer is faster and stronger than them ??
Your thoughts on this ?
REKX
Rookie
We all know Federer didn't take the tournaments outside of slams as serious. It's common with the Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, they often lose early in various pre slam tournaments and then end up going deep in the slams or winning.
Djokovic's peak year in all surfaces was 2011 - this is accepted by almost everyone.
As to why 2012 Federer was weaker than 2011 Federer. Well just look at the (slight) decline in Federer's speed the years after 2009. Federer wasn't a competitor at the French after say 2011 as he was during 2006 to 2009. 2007 beats 2011 Djokovic with a lot more ease.
Marco Rotim
Semi-Pro
That is not the right answer.
Federer did take Cincinnati Open 06 seriously, but he lost to Murray because the Rogers cup in 2006 ended a day before the beginning of the Cincinnati, in the Rogers cup Federer had played 4 Non Stop 3 Setters back to back in the 3rd Round, QF, SF and then F, so when he faced Murray he was obviously damn serious but he was tired.
So if the invincible Roger Federer in 2006 can be tired and lose to someone like Baby Murray, then even Djokovic who was godly in 2011 is allowed to be having an off day, he lost like 6 or 7 matches the whole year, you are counting Federer's win as some sort of a tiebreaker in Federer-Nole clay verdict?? LOL, I am afraid it is not enough to overlook the straight set loss the next year buddy.
Last edited:
Maverick13
Semi-Pro
I say he’s #2. He was a monster on clay from 05-09, and I think the only reason he doesn’t have 5 FO is not because Rafa was better; but because he was left handed.
40-15_forever
New User
What about Laver Cup and Basel? Surely these can.
He was a monster because guys like Guga weren’t around, so yes Roger was no.2 on clay behind Rafa in his era, but all time Roger doesn’t rate as a claycourter.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Good list.
Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander, Muster, Bruguera, and Rosewall.
(Drobny? Cochet? Pietrangeli? Lots of other candidates.)
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Similar threads
- Poll
