Rafa- The Greatest Clay Courter of All Time

[jorel]

Would make Federer arguably the second greatest clay courter of all time. The only thing holding him back from dominating clay is Nadal. He has been the second best clay court player the last few years. Imagine the records he would have broken if Nadal did not stand in his way.

 

[ninman]

I would say that Rafa is not the Greatest clay courter of all time...yet. He's got the longest winning streak of course, but that's not enough. You need consistency over a sustained period, and Nadal has only dominated clay for 3 years or so. If he keeps it up for another 3 or 4 then he may well be the greatest, but he really needs 7 RG's for that.

 

[jorel]

I would say that Rafa is not the Greatest clay courter of all time...yet. He's got the longest winning streak of course, but that's not enough. You need consistency over a sustained period, and Nadal has only dominated clay for 3 years or so. If he keeps it up for another 3 or 4 then he may well be the greatest, but he really needs 7 RG's for that.

What is the record for most consecutive French titles?

What is the record for most?

 

[Swissv2]

I would agree with the OP. Nads is definately one of the top players on clay in history.

 

[ninman]

What is the record for most consecutive French titles?

What is the record for most?

4 in a row is the open era record, and 6 total.

 

[CEvertFan]

Nadal is not the best clay court player ever.....yet. Borg still holds on to that title for the time being. If Nadal keeps playing on clay like he has been then he will eventually surpass Borg, but he hasn't yet.

 

[NamRanger]

We'll see next clay season if he can get past his injuries. Otherwise if he can't, say hello to the new GOAT.

 

[Wuornos]

We'll see next clay season if he can get past his injuries. Otherwise if he can't, say hello to the new GOAT.

I like that succinct, pithy and accurate.

 

[jorel]

I would agree with the OP. Nads is definately one of the top players on clay in history.

which would make Fed also one of the top players on clay in history

my point is. just because he doesnt win the French, doesnt mean he's not also one of the top clay court players ever

 

[djsiva]

Guys that in mind are better on clay.

That have records to prove it or at least challenge him : Guga, Lendl (he could have won at least three more, but he didn't even bother playing there because of Wimbledon),Borg, Wilander

Guys that don't have the records, but would definitely in my mind give him lots of trouble if not beat him: Muster, Vilas, Mecir, Kent Carlson, Micheal Stitch, and even Edberg

 

[quest01]

I think Nadal is the best clay courter of all time. He holds the record for most consecutive wins on clay which is astonishing and he has won 3 straight French with more possibly on the way. I think Federer is the second best clay court player of all time. If it wasnt for Nadal, Federer probably would have won 3 straight French Opens. I think Kuerten is also a great clay courter but i dont think hes as good as Federer or Nadal on clay.

 

[urban]

Yes. Federer is the second best clay courter of all time. And if there were no Federer, Nadal would have two RG-Wim in a row.Nadal is the second best grass courter of all time. Djokovic is the second best hard courter of all time, and he would have won the RG-Wim double without the players above, and he is the best newcomer of all time. Davydenko is the greatest choker of all time, and Safin the greatest wasted talent of all time. And Nalbandian is the fattest top ten player of all time. And Roddick is the best serve and volleyer of all time. And Ljubicic is the most consistent player of all time. Have i forgotten someone?

 

[Andres]

Would make Federer arguably the second greatest clay courter of all time. The only thing holding him back from dominating clay is Nadal. He has been the second best clay court player the last few years. Imagine the records he would have broken if Nadal did not stand in his way.

With that criteria, Fed, who's in the path for being GOAT is the only thing holding Nadal back.

That means Nadal is the 2nd greatest player of all time.

And we all know it's not.

And Federer is not a better claycourter than Borg, Vilas, Kuerten or Muster, for that matter.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

By my logic the players these days players are much better than in the past. Therefore I agree that Nadal and Federer are the best clay courters of all-time when it comes to quality of tennis. Borg dominated a weaker era in tennis before power and spin were big factors.

 

[zagor]

With that criteria, Fed, who's in the path for being GOAT is the only thing holding Nadal back.

That means Nadal is the 2nd greatest player of all time.

And we all know it's not.

And Federer is not a better claycourter than Borg, Vilas, Kuerten or Muster, for that matter.

You forgot Lendl and Wilander

 

[Andres]

You forgot Lendl and Wilander

I believe Lendl and Wilander are 2nd tier claycourters, below those 4.
Maybe Vilas could be considered a 2nd tier too, but the guy was a beast, and probably could rack up FOs like no other if he hasn't had to play the best claycourter of all time, Borg

Fed-lovers may use that logic to say: Hey! But Federer had to play Nadal.
Yeah, but Vilas has 45 clay titles

 

[zagor]

I believe Lendl and Wilander are 2nd tier claycourters, below those 4.
Maybe Vilas could be considered a 2nd tier too, but the guy was a beast, and probably could rack up FOs like no other if he hasn't had to play the best claycourter of all time, Borg

Fed-lovers may use that logic to say: Hey! But Federer had to play Nadal.
Yeah, but Vilas has 45 clay titles

Wilander may be 2nd tier,but I disagree about Lendl he was a great claycourter and I believe he would have won more French Opens if he didn't focus on Wimbledon so much,as for Federer I rank him about Agassi's level on clay

 

[hyogen]

i dont' think i've seen him on clay. what does it take to be good on clay? it's a slower court right? and u slide...

what about a clay court is it that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for sampras and federer to win a grandslam on it?

 

[hewittboy]

At this point I would rate him the 2nd best clay courter of all time behind only Borg. However there is a good chance he is on his way to being the best clay courter of all time. If he isnt already it is only because it is too young to be possible. It is close to impossible to achieve what he has already on clay so young.

 

[chaognosis]

Um... no. Premature at best, rampant fanboyism at worst. There's no denying that Nadal is a real force at the moment, but before he can be the best ever he needs the longevity and the records to prove it.

The greatest players on clay were Cochet, Rosewall and Borg. They each won the most important clay tournaments of their eras a half dozen times: Cochet = 1 WHCC + 4 French Amateurs [post-1925] + 1 French Pro; Rosewall = 1 French Amateur + 4 French Pros [on clay] + 1 French Open; Borg = 6 French Opens. Right now Nadal is halfway there, in a league with Kuerten, Wilander, Lendl, Lacoste, etc., maybe Trabert.

Federer is nowhere in the conversation yet, and his odds of ever joining it are becoming slimmer every year. In recent memory alone, Kuerten must rank above Federer--how can you ignore three French Open titles, not to mention his straight-sets win over Federer at Roland Garros in 2004?

 

[hyogen]

i dont' think i've seen him on clay. what does it take to be good on clay? it's a slower court right? and u slide...

what about a clay court is it that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for sampras and federer to win a grandslam on it?

can someone answer this please? I'd really like to know. Are clay courts more suited for players who necessarily aren't as FAST (like hewitt)...but are very very good shot makers? Lots of winners, etc? And Not suited for power players?

Hmm.... please help someone. :X

 

[Nadal_Freak]

can someone answer this please? I'd really like to know. Are clay courts more suited for players who necessarily aren't as FAST (like hewitt)...but are very very good shot makers? Lots of winners, etc? And Not suited for power players?

Hmm.... please help someone. :X

Clay courts suit players that don't have big serves and rely on rallys to win points. They normally aren't the greatest return of servers either but with extra time they have no problem. They also use a lot of spin. Speed is important on every surface but the other parts of their game determine what surface they are good at.

 

[federerfanatic]

With that criteria, Fed, who's in the path for being GOAT is the only thing holding Nadal back.

That means Nadal is the 2nd greatest player of all time.

And we all know it's not.

And Federer is not a better claycourter than Borg, Vilas, Kuerten or Muster, for that matter.

I agree Federer is not at the same level as a clay courter as Borg, Vilas, and Kuerten. Muster's peak was short, Muster's peak is a higher level, but Federer will have a longer peak on clay then Muster had. I do consider Federer comparable as a clay courter to quite a few once regular top clay courters who won the French once or more - Bruguera, Moya, Ferrero, Agassi, and better then some other - Kafelnikov, Gaudio, Costa.

 

[federerfanatic]

Right now Nadal is halfway there, in a league with Kuerten, Wilander, Lendl, Lacoste, etc., maybe Trabert.

Nadal is head and shoulders above Kuerten, Wilander, or Lendl. Those guys have 3 French Open titles, like Nadal already has, but none of them were anywhere close to as dominant as Nadal on clay.

 

[Rafa freak]

What is the record for most consecutive French titles?

What is the record for most?

borg won 6 in a row.

 

[burosky]

Here we go again with this "Greatest" tag. I would say Nadal is the Greatest clay courter of his generation. To say more would just be an endless debate.

 

[zagor]

Nadal is head and shoulders above Kuerten, Wilander, or Lendl. Those guys have 3 French Open titles, like Nadal already has, but none of them were anywhere close to as dominant as Nadal on clay.

Well Kuerten is one of my favourite players,but he was never dominant like Nadal on clay,he just wasn't consistent enough and he had some pretty bad loses on clay even in his prime.His best vs Nadal's best would be 50:50,but Nadal plays at his best far more often.

 

[djsiva]

borg won 6 in a row.

six yes. Not in a row. still amazing.

 

[chaognosis]

Nadal is head and shoulders above Kuerten, Wilander, or Lendl. Those guys have 3 French Open titles, like Nadal already has, but none of them were anywhere close to as dominant as Nadal on clay.

Well, I will admit that if push came to shove, I would rank Nadal ahead of Kuerten, Wilander and Lendl, as well as Lacoste (though not yet Trabert and certainly not Cochet, Rosewall or Borg). Still, "head and shoulders" is an exaggeration.

My point is this: if Nadal retires tomorrow, history won't remember him as being much greater (if any) than any of the aforementioned players. The fact that he won his three French Open titles consecutively may give him a slight edge over Kuerten, Wilander and Lendl, but his legacy won't have anything to do with win streaks or minor tournament wins. These things are trivial and quickly forgotten, until the media decides to dig them back up the next time a current star makes an impressive run. At the end of the day a player's reputation stands or falls on the big wins--in this day and age, that means the majors--and for Nadal to put some real distance between himself and Kuerten, et al, he's going to have to continue his success at Roland Garros for at least another year. And he needs 2-3 more years before he should start to be mentioned in the same breath as Cochet, Rosewall and Borg.

 

[djsiva]

I believe Lendl and Wilander are 2nd tier claycourters, below those 4.
Maybe Vilas could be considered a 2nd tier too, but the guy was a beast, and probably could rack up FOs like no other if he hasn't had to play the best claycourter of all time, Borg

Fed-lovers may use that logic to say: Hey! But Federer had to play Nadal.
Yeah, but Vilas has 45 clay titles

I just don't understand people on this board sometimes. Lendl and Wilander are always underestimated. Nobody could stay out on the courts longer than these guys. Their games weren't filled with flashy shots, but they were SOLID. I really don't think Nadal could beat Wilander, let alone Lendl on clay. Look at the number of titles Lendl won. Like I said before, if he wasn't so fixated on Wimbledon he would have won at least twenty more clay court tournaments.

Nadal doesn't overpower players. He is smart. He keeps the ball in play. Lendl and Wilander did the same. But Nadal over expends energy on shots he's just keeping in play. Even if he has the energy and muscles to do this, his joints and bones can't take it. Nobody could. Lendl and Wilander would kill this guy on slow clay.

Categorizing Lendl and Wilander to second teir claycourters is blasphemy. It really shows overflowing ignorance.

 

[djsiva]

Well, I will admit that if push came to shove, I would rank Nadal ahead of Kuerten, Wilander and Lendl, as well as Lacoste (though not yet Trabert and certainly not Cochet, Rosewall or Borg). Still, "head and shoulders" is an exaggeration.

My point is this: if Nadal retires tomorrow, history won't remember him as being much greater (if any) than any of the aforementioned players. The fact that he won his three French Open titles consecutively may give him a slight edge over Kuerten, Wilander and Lendl, but his legacy won't have anything to do with win streaks or minor tournament wins. These things are trivial and quickly forgotten, until the media decides to dig them back up the next time a current star makes an impressive run. At the end of the day a player's reputation stands or falls on the big wins--in this day and age, that means the majors--and for Nadal to put some real distance between himself and Kuerten, et al, he's going to have to continue his success at Roland Garros for at least another year. And he needs 2-3 more years before he should start to be mentioned in the same breath as Cochet, Rosewall and Borg.

Are you insane?

"though not yet Trabert and certainly not Cochet, Rosewall or Borg"

The only guy in there that is better than Nadal is Borg. And you're wrong about Lendl and Wilander. Someone needs to ask Nadal point blank if he thinks he's better than Lendl or Wilander on clay. I think he'll say no without even thinking. If Nadal wins three more RG. I'll concede that he's better than Lendl and Wilander. But remember Lendl and Wilander played during the same time so Clay court tennis back then was much harder to win.

 

[Rudy]

Rafa - The Greatest Clay Courter of All Time?

When its all said and done...he will be!

 

[djsiva]

Rafa - The Greatest Clay Courter of All Time?

When its all said and done...he will be!

Possible, because he's still playing. I hope his body holds out.

 

[federerfanatic]

Well, I will admit that if push came to shove, I would rank Nadal ahead of Kuerten, Wilander and Lendl, as well as Lacoste (though not yet Trabert and certainly not Cochet, Rosewall or Borg). Still, "head and shoulders" is an exaggeration.

My point is this: if Nadal retires tomorrow, history won't remember him as being much greater (if any) than any of the aforementioned players. The fact that he won his three French Open titles consecutively may give him a slight edge over Kuerten, Wilander and Lendl, but his legacy won't have anything to do with win streaks or minor tournament wins. These things are trivial and quickly forgotten, until the media decides to dig them back up the next time a current star makes an impressive run. At the end of the day a player's reputation stands or falls on the big wins--in this day and age, that means the majors--and for Nadal to put some real distance between himself and Kuerten, et al, he's going to have to continue his success at Roland Garros for at least another year. And he needs 2-3 more years before he should start to be mentioned in the same breath as Cochet, Rosewall and Borg.

So is what you are saying that you are only looking at wins at the "biggest clay court event" (on par with the equivalent of what that was in the days of the players you mentioned) and not looking at players success at the next biggest events on clay (Monte Carlo, Rome today) and their overall dominance and tournament record on clay?

 

[federerfanatic]

Well Kuerten is one of my favourite players,but he was never dominant like Nadal on clay,he just wasn't consistent enough and he had some pretty bad loses on clay even in his prime.His best vs Nadal's best would be 50:50,but Nadal plays at his best far more often.

I agree. Kuerten at his best vs Nadal at his best on clay would be a great match. Nadal was much consistent and dominant day in-day out though.

 

[chaognosis]

Are you insane?

Hm... not that I know of.

And you're wrong about Lendl and Wilander.

I'm having trouble making sense of the latter part of your post. What exactly was I wrong about concerning Lendl and Wilander? I said that I ranked Nadal slightly ahead of either of them, which you seem to agree with. Not sure what the problem is then. I question why you're so quick to dismiss Cochet, Trabert, and Rosewall, when I'm willing to bet you know very little about any of them.

Just a tidbit or two: the trophy Nadal has lifted each of the past three years is named after the Four Musketeers, the great French team of the 1920s, of which Cochet was the most talented and most accomplished member. Also, Stade Roland Garros was constructed for these guys after they took the Davis Cup from Tilden and the U.S.

 

[federerfanatic]

I'm having trouble making sense of the latter part of your post. What exactly was I wrong about concerning Lendl and Wilander? I said that I ranked Nadal slightly ahead of either of them, which you seem to agree with.

Actually it is pretty clear what he is saying is he does not feel Nadal should be slightly ahead of Lendl or Wilander at all:

Lendl and Wilander are always underestimated. Nobody could stay out on the courts longer than these guys. Their games weren't filled with flashy shots, but they were SOLID. I really don't think Nadal could beat Wilander, let alone Lendl on clay.

And you're wrong about Lendl and Wilander. Someone needs to ask Nadal point blank if he thinks he's better than Lendl or Wilander on clay. I think he'll say no without even thinking. If Nadal wins three more RG. I'll concede that he's better than Lendl and Wilander. But remember Lendl and Wilander played during the same time so Clay court tennis back then was much harder to win.

 

[djsiva]

Hm... not that I know of.



I'm having trouble making sense of the latter part of your post. What exactly was I wrong about concerning Lendl and Wilander? I said that I ranked Nadal slightly ahead of either of them, which you seem to agree with. Not sure what the problem is then. I question why you're so quick to dismiss Cochet, Trabert, and Rosewall, when I'm willing to bet you know very little about any of them.

Just a tidbit or two: the trophy Nadal has lifted each of the past three years is named after the Four Musketeers, the great French team of the 1920s, of which Cochet was the most talented and most accomplished member. Also, Stade Roland Garros was constructed for these guys after they took the Davis Cup from Tilden and the U.S.

With all due respect, these guys in the 1920's where amazing, but let's be serious. Tennis back then and even still now is an elitist sport. These guys pretty much played the same unfit players they always would beat. Its kinda of like me saying that I'm the best tennis player in my family. I know its a bit of an exageration, but seriously you can't be serious, when you think they would have any chance against even Harold Soloman or Martin Jaite.

we owe them a lot for paving the way for a great sport, but they were by no means the best clay court players. Before they died, I don't seriously think they thought this. Lendl and Wilander on the other hand are still wondering whether they could beat Nadal. And so are many tennis experts and fans.

 

[drakulie]

Nadal is definitely on his way to becoming the greatest. However, is he wants to sustain his domination on clay he is going to have to switch to a larger frame.

 

[zagor]

Nadal is definitely on his way to becoming the greatest. However, is he wants to sustain his domination on clay he is going to have to switch to a larger frame.

He should switch to Gamma Big Bubba 28

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Nadal is definitely on his way to becoming the greatest. However, is he wants to sustain his domination on clay he is going to have to switch to a larger frame.

In order for you to be a better poster you need to switch to a different line. The larger frame gag has been overplayed.

 

[psamp14]

i think although this era of tennis has slightly less competition than in past, federer and nadal will be remembered as two of the greatest players ever....federer the GOAT, and nadal the greatest clay courter of all time

of course only time will tell but with nadal at only 21 and with 3 RG titles, you have to like his chances for 3-4 more by 25/26,....he will always be a force on clay

 

[drakulie]

In order for you to be a better poster you need to switch to a different line. The larger frame gag has been overplayed.

Regardless, of what you think, his results were not as good at the end of the year as they were at the beginning. He is obviously tired, which has resulted in injury. All I'm saying is that a lighter, larger frame would do him a lot of good.

Oh well, I guess you don't want him to be the greatest clay-courter just because you own his current racquet and don't want him to switch because you would have to buy another frame. That is very selfish of you. I thought you were his biggest fan?

 

[chaognosis]

federerfanatic, I see now. Thank you.

It's been a long day, and the errant punctuation threw me off.

 

[chaognosis]

These guys pretty much played the same unfit players they always would beat. Its kinda of like me saying that I'm the best tennis player in my family. I know its a bit of an exageration, but seriously you can't be serious, when you think they would have any chance against even Harold Soloman or Martin Jaite.

Right.

And 80 years from now Lendl, Wilander and Nadal will also be ancient relics, who won meaningless titles against soft, "unfit" opponents in the Stone Age. Our children will think us crazy for having been impressed.

Also, Babe Ruth was a pretty mediocre baseball player. I mean, he was all right in his day but no match for even Vernon Wells or Juan Uribe. Just a glorified fat man. Maybe top 1000 all time.

we owe them a lot for paving the way for a great sport, but they were by no means the best clay court players. Before they died, I don't seriously think they thought this. Lendl and Wilander on the other hand are still wondering whether they could beat Nadal. And so are many tennis experts and fans.

Well, I highly doubt that Henri Cochet ever wondered if he could beat Rafael Nadal. But he certainly could (and should) have considered himself the best clay court player who'd ever lived.

 

[rod99]

the original poster (and anyone who agrees with him) is obviously very young and ignorant of the history of the game. actually, can there be a rule that noone under the age of 18 can post on these boards? nadal is NOT the greatest clay court player if he were to retire today. and federer isn't in the top 10 (to say the least) of all time greats on clay. the comment the original poster made about federer was hilarious. nadal is having a great run, and if he keeps it up then he will be the greatest clay courter. however, he's not there right now. borg was dominant on clay and did it for 7 years as opposed to nadal's 3. that's a big difference.

wilander and lendl were also great players on clay. they had some real battles in the mid-80s. kent carlsson had the potential to be an all time clay court great but he had the knees of a 60 year old and had to retire when he was like 22. he dominated muster in a best of 5 match in stuttgart in 1988 and muster (always known as one of the fittest guys on tour) said there was no way he could outlast carlsson.

 

[CyBorg]

Well, I will admit that if push came to shove, I would rank Nadal ahead of Kuerten, Wilander and Lendl, as well as Lacoste (though not yet Trabert and certainly not Cochet, Rosewall or Borg). Still, "head and shoulders" is an exaggeration.

You should reconsider. Kuerten played in a much more competitive era. In 1999 he should have won the French (which would have given him three in a row) but lost to Andrei Medvedev who played his finest tennis and would have beaten Nadal under the same conditions.

There are no Medvedev types in today's clay era. It's a weak era. Guys hit flat and low. There are very few above average clay courters who can hit with good topspin. Kuerten would given Nadal a lot of trouble - particularly his backhand down the line to Nadal's backhand. Nadal is not seeing this kind of player at the French Open today - he is seeing the likes of Federer and he's eating them up just as Kuerten or anyone else would have.

 

[grafrules]

You should reconsider. Kuerten played in a much more competitive era. In 1999 he should have won the French (which would have given him three in a row) but lost to Andrei Medvedev who played his finest tennis and would have beaten Nadal under the same conditions.

There are no Medvedev types in today's clay era. It's a weak era. Guys hit flat and low. There are very few above average clay courters who can hit with good topspin. Kuerten would given Nadal a lot of trouble - particularly his backhand down the line to Nadal's backhand. Nadal is not seeing this kind of player at the French Open today - he is seeing the likes of Federer and he's eating them up just as Kuerten or anyone else would have.

What a bunch of crock. You are so full of sh%t it isnt even funny. Your biases, either for certain players last decade or against Nadal clearly blind you, and I dont have to be a Nadal fan (which I am not) to see that.

 

[CyBorg]

Here are the notable 2000 French Open participants who were naturalized clay courters:

- Kuerten
- Norman
- Kafelnikov (more or less but he's on the list due to consistent clay court success)
- Pioline
- Corretja (maybe the best open era clay courter to not win the RG)
- Ferrero
- Berasategui and Bruguera in their latter days
- Costa
- Moya
- Medvedev
- Gustafsson
- qualifier Coria
- Puerta

This is one of the better eras .. these guys were naturals .. I'm not even including the Sampras-Agassi types here .. these are not all-around players who could play on clay (okay, maybe Kafelnikov would fit that bill), but naturalized dirtballers who could hit with deadly spin and exchange groundstrokes for hours; effectively dismantling the likes of Sampras .. Sampras would have been a finalist more than once in today's era .. let's see who he would be playing:

The 2007 dirtballers

- Nadal (it goes downhill from there)
- Robredo
- Ferrer
- Nalbandian
- Ferrero
- Chela
- Canas
- Moya
- Almagro
- Andreev
- Zabaleta
- Horna
- the great Oscar Hernandez

I'm not including the likes of Federer, Davydenko, etc for the same reasons I didn't include Agassi above - they're not clay courters .. they're competitive but the point is that they are partly so because they're playing against other all-around players and very few real dirtballers .. the natural clay courters listed above are mediocrities for the most part .. yes, Nadal has his three consecutive French Open titles and he's winning almost everything else on clay, but we have to ask ourselves if he would be doing this seven years ago and the answer clearly is no - he would be doing roughly what Kuerten did; win some, lose some and ultimately be remembered as one of the best on the surface but not the best.

If anyone wants to go back 25-30 years ago I would gladly show you how that era was miles and miles deeper than what we are seeing in 2005-2007.

 

[CyBorg]

What a bunch of crock. You are so full of sh%t it isnt even funny. Your biases, either for certain players last decade or against Nadal clearly blind you, and I dont have to be a Nadal fan (which I am not) to see that.

I love how depending on where you look in TW I am occasionally labelled a Nadal hater (and I suppose Federer lover) and occasionally referred to as Federer hater (and I suppose Nadal lover).

The ad hominems are priceless. Don't forget to ignore the argument.