Rank these great clay courters

[lessthanjake]

I have listed all the 1 or 2 time French Open winners since 1989, along with a selected couple extra players who made French Open finals and were a major part of their era on clay. Rank these players based how good they were on clay in their prime years (prime YEARS, not just their best single year). I am not just looking for the obvious answer of who had better results, but rather who you think was actually the better clay court player.

Roger Federer
Sergi Bruguera
Jim Courier
Thomas Muster
Albert Costa
Andre Agassi
Andrei Medvedev
Michael Chang
Carlos Moya
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Gaston Gaudio
Guillermo Coria
Andres Gomez
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Alex Corretja
Alberto Berasategui

Here's how I would rank them:

1. Roger Federer
2. Sergi Bruguera
3. Thomas Muster
4. Jim Courier
5. Juan Carlos Ferrero
6. Andre Agassi
7. Carlos Moya
8. Michael Chang
9. Andres Gomez
10. Guillermo Coria
11. Yevgeny Kafelnikov
12. Alex Corretja
13. Andrei Medvedev
14. Albert Costa
15. Gaston Gaudio
16. Alberto Berasategui

I think the top 6 are clearly the best of the list on clay. To me Roger is first because of his dominance of everyone but Nadal, and also the fact that none of the other players combined his consistent success at Roland Garros AND clay Masters Series events. Furthermore, I just can't match up those players shot by shot and see how they are better than Federer. Ranking Bruguera, Muster, and Courier was hard. I decided to put Bruguera above Courier solely because he beat Courier two straight years at RG. I put Muster between them. I didn't know what to do with him because he was so great on clay, but did not have consistent results at RG. However, his Masters Series and other results put him above Courier IMO. I think Ferrero is underrated on clay. He was a beast in his prime. After that I don't think it is too controversial.

 

[wyutani]

why no nadal in the top 3? thats so weird for a guy who won 4 roland garros title.

 

[lessthanjake]

why no nadal in the top 3? thats so weird for a guy who won 4 roland garros title.

I included all the clay courters who won only 1 or 2 Roland Garros titles in the last 20 years. By that I meant I didn't include Kuerten and Nadal.

 

[thalivest]

Ranking Gaudio and Berasetegui above Gomez is a joke. Gomez was a very formidable clay courter for a long time who wasnt a good enough all surface player to have a high ranking so kept drawing Lendl before the semis at the French. The guy has won 16 career clay court titles including Rome twice, and he probably should have won Rome again in 1990 when he lost a very close semifinal to Muster he choked a bit at the end of.

Anyway here are my rankings:

1. Jim Courier
2. Thomas Muster
3. Roger Federer
4. Juan Carlos Ferrero
5. Sergei Bruguera
6. Carlos Moya
7. Andre Agassi
8. Andres Gomez
9. Michael Chang
10. Yevgeny Kafelnikov
11. Alex Corretja
12. Albert Costa
13. Andrei Medvedev
14. Guillermo Coria
15. Gaston Gaudio
16. Alberto Berasetegui

Gaudio and Berasetegui were flukes, plain and simple. Coria was way overrated, a physical and mental lightweight who was easily overpowered even on clay and had his best year (2004) in perhaps the worst year of clay court competition ever which he still didnt achieve all the much in. Medvedev was pretty good in the 2nd quarter of the 90s (his prime) on clay but helpess vs the big guns at the big events.

Courier and Muster at their best are superior to Federer on clay. Plain and simple. They are superior to Bruguera at his best on clay too. I actually think Ferrero in his prime would have the slight edge over Bruguera in his on clay, hence my ranking.

 

[lessthanjake]

Ranking Gaudio and Berasetegui above Gomez is a joke. Gomez was a very formidable clay courter for a long time who wasnt a good enough all surface player to have a high ranking so kept drawing Lendl before the semis at the French. The guy has won 16 career clay court titles including Rome twice, and he probably should have won Rome again in 1990 when he lost a very close semifinal to Muster he choked a bit at the end of.

Anyway here are my rankings:

1. Jim Courier
2. Thomas Muster
3. Roger Federer
4. Juan Carlos Ferrero
5. Sergei Bruguera
6. Carlos Moya
7. Andre Agassi
8. Andres Gomez
9. Michael Chang
10. Yevgeny Kafelnikov
11. Alex Corretja
12. Albert Costa
13. Andrei Medvedev
14. Guillermo Coria
15. Gaston Gaudio
16. Alberto Berasetegui

You are right about Gomez. I listed him too low because I didn't realize he had won Rome. or anything big outside of RG. I haven't actually watched him play live, so I suppose I have an excuse for not listing him right. I fixed that though.

In any case, I'm curious about a few things. Why Muster and Courier over Federer? Why Moya over Agassi? And why Bruguera below Courier, Ferrero, and Muster?

 

[thalivest]

You are right about Gomez. I listed him too low because I didn't realize he had won Rome. or anything big outside of RG. I haven't actually watched him play live, so I suppose I have an excuse for not listing him right.

In any case, I'm curious about a few things. Why Muster and Courier over Federer? Why Moya over Agassi? And why Bruguera below Courier, Ferrero, and Muster?

Agassi really has a more shallow resume outside the French. He performed very well at the French, especialy in his clay court prime (1990-1992) but outside the French there are few really good performance in Masters events. I sort of sensed he focused mostly on just the French which was the most important one of course, but it diminishes his value as a clay courter somewhat I still feel. Then again Moya didnt even make it past the quarters of a French Open other than the year he won so maybe I am generous on him. He performed far better in Masters events on clay than Agassi though, often making semis, finals, or even winning (though he has won only 2, Agassi won only 1 way past his prime) and in general outside the French than Agassi. Agassi won their match at the 99 French but I really felt Moya blew that more than Agassi winning it. Moya was up a set, 2 breaks in the 2nd, and fell apart to allow Agassi to come back IMO. If I asked flat out who I think is the better clay courter in their primes I think it is Moya, though it is close.

I dont believe Bruguera's best on clay is as good as Courier or Muster's best. Bruguera did win the 93 French Open final over Courier still at his peak, which was a great effort by Bruguera but I sort of felt Jim had a bit of an off day. Courier had whooped him easily in Rome earlier that year. I just feel both in their primes Courier is better and would win more often than not. I have never seen Bruguera seem as intimidating and untouchable on clay as Courier at the 92 French.

The 95-96 Muster likewise I think would have the upper hand on the 93-95 Bruguera on clay, and he owns Bruguera in their head to head on clay and in general anyway. Plus Muster won 40 clay court titles with someone like Bruguera doesnt even approach.

Ferrero suffered from starting his prime on clay when Kuerten was at his best, and he still was able to often go toe to toe with a prime Kuerten on clay in 2000 and 2001, but just not able to beat him when it really mattered at the French. He blew the 2002 final which he should have won. Bruguera is a bit more accomplished on clay because of his 1 extra French title and 1 extra French Open final, but I even think the 2001-2003 Ferrero was slightly better than the 93-95 Bruguera on clay.

Basically you asked to judge who you felt was better in their prime. I feel Muster and Courier for sure, and probably Ferrero (though Ferrero is a closer call) were overall better than Bruguera in his on clay if I had to choose. Hence my ranking.

I believe Muster and Courier at their best on clay were simply scarier and better than Federer at his. Even taking into account the Nadal factor I still believe that. Courier and Muster at their peaks on clay had other guys petrified in a way I dont believe Federer ever had the non Nadal contenders, though he regularly beat them in the end.

 

[lessthanjake]

I respect your opinion, but I really do think that Federer has everyone just as terrified on clay as Courier or Muster did. He basically has dominated everyone outside of Nadal on clay. I once did a fair bit of research on this. If you define a clay court contender as anyone who has made a RG quarterfinals or clay Masters Series final since 2003, then there have been 25 contenders who Federer has played. Since Wimbledon 2003, Federer has a record of 52-5 (91.2%) on clay against those 25. Furthermore, total since Wimbledon 2003, Federer is 98-7 (93.3%) on clay in matches not against Nadal. Lastly, he hasnt lost at Roland Garros to anyone not named Nadal in 5 years. That has gotta be pretty scary for everyone else.

I don't have a huge argument with the rest of the stuff you said. I was just curious as to your reasoning for ranking it the way you did.

 

[big bang]

I have listed all the 1 or 2 time French Open winners since 1989, along with a selected couple extra players who made French Open finals and were a major part of their era on clay. Rank these players based how good they were on clay in their prime years (prime YEARS, not just their best single year). I am not just looking for the obvious answer of who had better results, but rather who you think was actually the better clay court player.

Roger Federer
Sergi Bruguera
Jim Courier
Thomas Muster
Albert Costa
Andre Agassi
Andrei Medvedev
Michael Chang
Carlos Moya
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Gaston Gaudio
Guillermo Coria
Andres Gomez
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Alex Corretja
Alberto Berasategui

Here's how I would rank them:

1. Roger Federer
2. Sergi Bruguera
3. Thomas Muster
4. Jim Courier
5. Juan Carlos Ferrero
6. Andre Agassi
7. Carlos Moya
8. Michael Chang
9. Andres Gomez
10. Guillermo Coria
11. Yevgeny Kafelnikov
12. Alex Corretja
13. Andrei Medvedev
14. Albert Costa
15. Gaston Gaudio
16. Alberto Berasategui

I think the top 6 are clearly the best of the list on clay. To me Roger is first because of his dominance of everyone but Nadal, and also the fact that none of the other players combined his consistent success at Roland Garros AND clay Masters Series events. Furthermore, I just can't match up those players shot by shot and see how they are better than Federer. Ranking Bruguera, Muster, and Courier was hard. I decided to put Bruguera above Courier solely because he beat Courier two straight years at RG. I put Muster between them. I didn't know what to do with him because he was so great on clay, but did not have consistent results at RG. However, his Masters Series and other results put him above Courier IMO. I think Ferrero is underrated on clay. He was a beast in his prime. After that I don't think it is too controversial.

you must be joking ranking Fed as nr 1!! hes not anywhere near nr 1, most of these guys would have owned him on clay..

 

[big bang]

I respect your opinion, but I really do think that Federer has everyone just as terrified on clay as Courier or Muster did. He basically has dominated everyone outside of Nadal on clay. I once did a fair bit of research on this. If you define a clay court contender as anyone who has made a RG quarterfinals or clay Masters Series final since 2003, then there have been 25 contenders who Federer has played. Since Wimbledon 2003, Federer has a record of 52-5 (91.2%) on clay against those 25. Furthermore, total since Wimbledon 2003, Federer is 98-7 (93.3%) on clay in matches not against Nadal. Lastly, he hasnt lost at Roland Garros to anyone not named Nadal in 5 years. That has gotta be pretty scary for everyone else.

I don't have a huge argument with the rest of the stuff you said. I was just curious as to your reasoning for ranking it the way you did.

its a fact that we only have 1 superior claycourter in the world today and he destroys Fed, of course we have a lot of second ranked claycourters but please dont compare these guys to some of the guys on this list. just to mention a few: Muster, Courier and Bruguera would have destroyed Fed the same Way Rafa does..

 

[joeri888]

its a fact that we only have 1 superior claycourter in the world today and he destroys Fed, of course we have a lot of second ranked claycourters but please dont compare these guys to some of the guys on this list. just to mention a few: Muster, Courier and Bruguera would have destroyed Fed the same Way Rafa does..

Though I won't say Federer should be top of that list, I disagree with you for a few reasons on the bolded part.

1. Rafa has only really 'destroyed' Federer once on clay, in 11 meetings. Most other matches were relatively close, really close, or even won by Federer.
2. Rafa is a FAR superior claycourt and overall player to the ones mentioned above.
3. Rafael Nadal is a terrible match up for Roger Federer, not just mentally but also just how their playing styles match up.

They might be better, but they would absolutely NOT destroy Federer, it would always be close.

 

[zagor]

Ranking Gaudio and Berasetegui above Gomez is a joke. Gomez was a very formidable clay courter for a long time who wasnt a good enough all surface player to have a high ranking so kept drawing Lendl before the semis at the French. The guy has won 16 career clay court titles including Rome twice, and he probably should have won Rome again in 1990 when he lost a very close semifinal to Muster he choked a bit at the end of.

Anyway here are my rankings:

1. Jim Courier
2. Thomas Muster
3. Roger Federer
4. Juan Carlos Ferrero
5. Sergei Bruguera
6. Carlos Moya
7. Andre Agassi
8. Andres Gomez
9. Michael Chang
10. Yevgeny Kafelnikov
11. Alex Corretja
12. Albert Costa
13. Andrei Medvedev
14. Guillermo Coria
15. Gaston Gaudio
16. Alberto Berasetegui

Gaudio and Berasetegui were flukes, plain and simple. Coria was way overrated, a physical and mental lightweight who was easily overpowered even on clay and had his best year (2004) in perhaps the worst year of clay court competition ever which he still didnt achieve all the much in. Medvedev was pretty good in the 2nd quarter of the 90s (his prime) on clay but helpess vs the big guns at the big events.

Courier and Muster at their best are superior to Federer on clay. Plain and simple. They are superior to Bruguera at his best on clay too. I actually think Ferrero in his prime would have the slight edge over Bruguera in his on clay, hence my ranking.

I think this is a good list.However while I agree that at his best Muster was a superior claycourter to Fed,IMO Fed has him clearly beat in the longevity department,especially if he reaches another FO final in his career.However since I value peak play more than longevity I agree.

I would also rank Costa a bit higher,now Ferrero might have played a crappy match in the final against him but still he's no gimmie on clay(certainly better than say Stich who Kafelnikov beat)and Costa won his FO fair and square and he reached the final of all clay masters.I would probably rank him higher than Corretja who while a very good claycourter never won FO and he didn't really put up much of a fight against Moya in '98(Moya was good that year but not that good)in the best year of his career(If I'm not wrong).

 

[lessthanjake]

its a fact that we only have 1 superior claycourter in the world today and he destroys Fed, of course we have a lot of second ranked claycourters but please dont compare these guys to some of the guys on this list. just to mention a few: Muster, Courier and Bruguera would have destroyed Fed the same Way Rafa does..

Do you realize the fallacy in your argument? In the last 5 years, there have been 20 important clay court tournaments (1 French Open and 3 Masters Series' a year). Nadal is ridiculously good on clay and has won 14 of them. Federer has won 4 of the remaining 6. That really doesn't leave much for other players to win and thus be considered by you to be "superior claycourters."

You don't think of the other top clay courters of this era as being good because they haven't won much on clay. But they havent won much because of Nadal. I'm sure you don't think that anybody in the 90s was NEARLY as good as Nadal on clay (except maybe Kuerten but he is not part of this thread), so do you really think those 90s players would have fared any better against Nadal than everyone else has in this era? You can't say they would with any certainty.

Again, the 90s clay courters all won a fair bit of stuff. But that doesnt mean they were all ridiculously great. It just means that there was a lot of parity at the top of clay court tennis in that decade, such that they split stuff pretty equally. In this decade, there is virtually no parity in clay court tennis. Nadal is the king over everyone. And Federer lords over everyone except Nadal. Does that make everyone else worse than the 90s crew? No. If Nadal and Federer are better than the 90s players (as I believe is the case), then the 90s players would have fared just as badly against those two as this era's players have. If that is true, then the 90s players wouldn't look "superior" either.

 

[flying24]

you must be joking ranking Fed as nr 1!! hes not anywhere near nr 1, most of these guys would have owned him on clay..

I agree Federer should not yet be quite ranked #1 of this list but your comments are even more insane. "Most of these guys would have owned him on clay". Yeah I am sure the likes of Moya, Agassi, Gomez, Chang, Kafelnikov, Corretja, Costa, Medvedev, Coria, Gaudio, Berasetegui would have owned Federer on clay, LOL! Heck Federer played Moya, Gaudio and Coria on clay when they were all at or near their best and went a combined 5-0 vs them. The same year Moya won Rome for 1 of his only 2 ever Masters titles and lost in the FO quarters to Coria, that Coria won Monte Carlo and was the French Open runner up, and that Gaudio won the French, all 3 lost to Federer on clay.

The only guys on the whole list that would even consistently challenge Federer on clay let alone destroy him would be Muster, Courier, Ferrero, Bruguera, and maybe an in form Agassi potentialy due to matchup. However if you any of those would be as dominant vs Federer on clay as Nadal you are crazy. None of those guys were even close to Nadal's level on clay, Nadal is one of those very rare such sickeningly dominant and consistent clay courters over a good length of time that he is already up among the top few in history easily, which none of these others on the list, great as several of them are as clay courters in their own right, come even close to being. The few who arguably (and I say arguably) ever reached a level on clay close to Nadal's best mantained it for only 1-2 years (eg- Muster of 95-96, Courier of 92). Also Nadal did not destroy Federer on clay overall. Of their 11 matches on clay Federer has won 2, had match points in best 3 of 5 in a 3rd, taken a set off in 5 others, and only lost 3 in straight sets (one he was up 4-0 in the 2nd set).

 

[Nadalfan89]

It`s funny because Nadal and Borg would ravage all those players easily on clay.

 

[flying24]

It`s funny because Nadal and Borg would ravage all those players easily on clay.

I agree with that. I think prime Rosewall would as well. Lendl, Wilander, and Kuerten are even clearly above this entire list IMO. I often wonder how great Vilas might have been without Borg then again he even lost the French Open final to 17 year old Wilander.

 

[lessthanjake]

Courier and Muster at their best are superior to Federer on clay. Plain and simple. They are superior to Bruguera at his best on clay too. I actually think Ferrero in his prime would have the slight edge over Bruguera in his on clay, hence my ranking.

What makes you think those two are better?

There is nothing that Courier does better on clay than Federer. Federer has the better serve, better kick serve, better forehand, better backhand, better volleys, better movement.

Muster is a little bit harder to quantify because they are so different in style, but Federer is a superior mover on clay. His forehand is very different, but undoubtedly better. Muster's backhand was not particularly strong, but maybe more consistent as a rally shot. Federer has a much better slice though, so it equals out. Federer has better volleys, better passing shots, better serve etc etc. There's very little that Muster does better than Federer on clay. Normally when a player doesn't looks as good shot to shot but is better on clay, that is due to the player who is better on paper not moving as well on clay or not being comfortable on it. But Federer moves just as well on clay as elsewhere and is quite comfortable there. It sometimes is also because the better looking player has very flat groundstrokes. Federer doesnt have that either, as he usually puts on huge levels of topspin (not as much as Nadal but he still averages about as much rpm on his forehand as Muster did).

 

[grafselesfan]

Muster and Courier at their best would beat Federer on clay on the basis of:

-more consistency off the ground on clay
-more spin (especialy Muster) off the ground on clay
-more general comfort on the surface, including even in their footing
-superior fitness
-superior sheer will, guts, as well as confidence on the surface

 

[lessthanjake]

Muster and Courier at their best would beat Federer on clay on the basis of:

-more consistency off the ground on clay
-more spin (especialy Muster) off the ground on clay
-more general comfort on the surface, including even in their footing
-superior fitness
-superior sheer will, guts, as well as confidence on the surface

I don't think they have more consistency off the forehand wing because Federer, at his best, makes almost no errors off that wing. All three of these guys have a relatively weak backhand, so I don't see a big difference. I see Federer's as more consistent than Courier's backhand but slightly worse than Muster's (but again only slightly because Muster's backhand wasnt that great either).

There is no way those guys have better footwork than Federer ANYWHERE, even on clay.

Superior fitness? Federer has godly fitness. I dont see a difference there.

And sheer will is a silly thing to use. Federer has willed himself to plenty of victories, this year's French Open having a few examples itself.

As for spin, you are patently wrong. Muster averages supposedly 2882 rpm on his forehand with a maximum of 3750. I believe Federer averages 2700 rpm but has a maximum of about 4800 rpm. This just means that Federer hits a flat shot more, but when he does hit topspin, he can put more spin on than Muster did. Muster's shot just looked more loopy because he hit it slower.

 

[whoopinstick]

wheres guga in this list?

 

[bruce38]

Federer would destroy everyone on clay, except Rafa, Guga and Borg.

 

[grafselesfan]

Guga isnt in the list since letsthanjake doesnt want to include anyone who would be a cinch to be ranked over his beloved Federer (hence why Nadal, Borg, Vilas, Kuerten, Lendl, Wilander are all out). Even so why bothering making a thread topic as it is clear the OP only is willing to hear one answer. It is clear anyone who doesnt rank Federer #1 will be attacked and sung the sermon "Federer does everything better than Courier and Muster on every surface, blah blah blah". Basically this is designed as a thread strictly to boost up Federer as a clay courter, no other reason.

By the way the fact even the biased OP was wise enough to not even include any of Djokovic, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Ferrer, or Robredo among this large group of names already says enough about the overall clay court "competition" Federer faced.

 

[federerGOAT]

Federer would destroy everyone on clay, except Rafa, Guga and Borg.

Wrong, Federer would destroy everyone on clay except Nadal. He is the 2nd best clay courter of all time. Borg, Guga, Lendl, Wilander don't even hold a candle to the great Federer.

 

[lessthanjake]

Guga isnt in the list since letsthanjake doesnt want to include anyone who would be a cinch to be ranked over his beloved Federer (hence why Nadal, Borg, Vilas, Kuerten, Lendl, Wilander are all out). Even so why bothering making a thread topic as it is clear the OP only is willing to hear one answer. It is clear anyone who doesnt rank Federer #1 will be attacked and sung the sermon "Federer does everything better than Courier and Muster on every surface, blah blah blah". Basically this is designed as a thread strictly to boost up Federer as a clay courter, no other reason.

By the way the fact even the biased OP was wise enough to not even include any of Djokovic, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Ferrer, or Robredo among this large group of names already says enough about the overall clay court "competition" Federer faced.

1. I didnt include Kuerten or Nadal because they would obviously be the top 2. There was no need to include them when we all know where they go. If you read the first line of my post (saying that I included only players who won 1 or 2 RG and not more) you would have known why I didnt include Guga. There was no point because included them wouldn't have created any further discussion.
2. I didn't include Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Wilander etc etc because I was not interested in pre-90s players for this particular thread. That would have expanded the list of great clay players to an overwhelming point. The point of the thread was to compare the 90s and 2000s clay court players who all have SIMILAR resumes. This means no pre-90s players and no Kuerten or Nadal, who have clearly better clay court resumes than the people on my list.
3. I want people to disagree with me. I will argue back and forth, and I'd like people to substantiate their view. What's wrong with that?

 

[grafselesfan]

Wrong, Federer would destroy everyone on clay except Nadal. He is the 2nd best clay courter of all time. Borg, Guga, Lendl, Wilander don't even hold a candle to the great Federer.

I guess you forget to tell that to broken hipped Kuerten who way past his prime destroyed prime Federer at Roland Garros. I have mentioned this before but arent you a poster who a few months ago claimed Davydenko was better than Sampras on hard courts and maybe even grass?

 

[grafselesfan]

3. I want people to disagree with me. I will argue back and forth, and I'd like people to substantiate their view. What's wrong with that?

The problem is you are not even willing to hear or consider the reasoning some people have to why they think Muster or Courier might be better on clay. You just respond always that it makes no sense, Federer does everything better than Muster or Courier on all surfaces, it is so obvious, etc..

 

[lessthanjake]

I guess you forget to tell that to broken hipped Kuerten who way past his prime destroyed prime Federer at Roland Garros. I have mentioned this before but arent you a poster who a few months ago claimed Davydenko was better than Sampras on hard courts and maybe even grass?

Federer way before his prime beat Kuerten in 2002 on clay when Kuerten was better than he was in 2004. What does that tell you? Certainly that Federer was capable of beating Kuerten in 2004. He just didn't play even close to his best tennis and lost. If Federer was incapable of beating "broken hipped Kuerten" then maybe you'd have a point. But he clearly was, so you have no point.

 

[lessthanjake]

The problem is you are not even willing to hear or consider the reasoning some people have to why they think Muster or Courier might be better on clay. You just respond always that it makes no sense, Federer does everything better than Muster or Courier on all surfaces, it is so obvious, etc..

When I respond in that way, you are meant to respond with your own reasoning as to why the points I made are wrong. If I am frustrating you, it is probably because you can't do that, because you don't really believe what you are saying.

 

[RoddickFan]

I'd go
1.roddick
2.serena williams
3.venus williams
4.peter polansky
5.dougmond osiaso
6.F.E.D.A.C.E
7.roddick
8.pat mac
9.blake
10.nadal
11.federer
12.bud collins

 

[Fedfan1234]

This is my list.
1 Sergei Bruguera
2 Roger Federer
3 Jim Courier
4 Andre Agassi
5 Juan Carlos Ferrero
6 Carlos Moya
7 Thomas Muster
8 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
9 Andres Gomez
10 Albert Costa
11 Alex Corretja
12 Michael Chang
13 Gaston Gaudio
14 Guillermo Coria
15 Alberto Berasetegui
16 Andrei Medvedev

Bruguera was like Nadal huge top spin on every stroke,
the only player that could potentially trouble Federer(in his prime) out of this list. If he really would beat Federer is another matter, but because of this potential and more RG I put him higher on the list (for now).
The other players either do not have the right playing style to bother Federer that much or are just not good enough with this style.

 

[CyBorg]

Another in a series of "Federer is the greatest/OMG, how can you say he is not the greatest" threads.

 

[RoddickFan]

look at mine i dont think he even made it.

 

[CyBorg]

The problem is you are not even willing to hear or consider the reasoning some people have to why they think Muster or Courier might be better on clay. You just respond always that it makes no sense, Federer does everything better than Muster or Courier on all surfaces, it is so obvious, etc..

He's like Chopin's insecure little brother.

 

[jwbarrientos]

I don't see Roger defeating Guillermo Coria in his prime

 

[RoddickFan]

cant see roger beating F.E.A.D.A.C.E in his prime either

 

[tkramer15]

A similar topic came up in the Former Pro Player section, and I responded with this. Based on what I have watched from the players you listed, and from those players' career results on clay, I would put Kuerten, Muster and Courier as the next best clay courters after Nadal from the 90s/early 00s. It gets tricky when Federer gets thrown into the mix. Although Federer has obviously been very successful on clay, it is still his weakest surface, so it is hard for me to include him in the comparison with the others, most of whom experienced the majority of their success on the dirt. Plus, Federer is probably the greatest of all-time, so it seems strange to include him here. As one poster mentioned, I too feel like Ferrero gets lost in the shuffle a bit. He was really tough on clay for several years in the early 2000s -- clearly number two behind Kuerten over that period.

 

[Bilbo]

Jim Courier is 1-10... ummm... i guess Bruguera is number 11?

 

[Bilbo]

I don't see Roger defeating Guillermo Coria in his prime

...Roger did beat Guillermo Coria in his prime

twice... once being in a four setter at hamburg.

 

[lambielspins]

I don't see Roger defeating Guillermo Coria in his prime

That is a nice little theory except for the fact Roger did beat Coria in both 2004 and 2005 when they played on clay, their only two matches ever on the surface. If that isnt Coria's "prime" I dont know what is.

1. Thomas Muster- the best clay courter
2. Jim Courier- amazing on clay and dominated pre-prime Muster on the surface. Muster is still a bit more natural on the red stuff.
3. Sergei Bruguera- up there with Muster and Courier
4. Roger Federer- a notch below the other 3 up to now. If he wins another French that will change
5. Juan Carlos Ferrero- unlucky
6. Andre Agassi- was alot tougher on clay in the early 90s than what he was in his overall late career prime
7. Carlos Moya- overrated, but still a tough dirtballer
8. Michael Chang- was better on clay than people realize. Make another final in 95 by beating Bruguera before being crushed by an on fire Muster.
9. Andres Gomez- not sure where to rank him, would be much lower without FO title
10. Alex Corretja- one of the best recent clay courters to not win French
11. Albert Costa- FO title in 2002 was reward for overall strong career on clay
12. Andrei Medvedev- I really think he is better than YK on clay, just didnt get the breaks at the French
13. Yevgeny Kafelnikov- worst clay courter to win FO along with Gaudio
14. Gaston Gaudio- would be #16 without fluke FO title
15. Alberto Berasetegui- was awesome at 94 French Open, what else?
16. Guillermo Coria- insanely overrated

 

[bruce38]

Wrong, Federer would destroy everyone on clay except Nadal. He is the 2nd best clay courter of all time. Borg, Guga, Lendl, Wilander don't even hold a candle to the great Federer.

I stand corrected.

 

[kishnabe]

1.Roger Federer( Hard pick, since Federer Is Dominant Clay Courter, maybe weak Clay field)
2.Juan Carlos Ferrero( Injured so maybe he would have been much better)
3.Carlos Moya
4.Guillermo Coria
5.Andre Agassi( 3 finals deserves to be here)
6.Sergi Bruguera
7.Thomas Muster
8.Jim Courier
9.Albert Costa
10.Alex Corretja
11.Alberto Berasategui
12.Yevgeny Kafelnikov
13.Andres Gomez
14.Andrei Medvedev
15.Gaston Gaudio
16.Roger Federer
17.Michael Chang( One slam Wonder)





Alex Corretja

 

[lambielspins]

1.Roger Federer( Hard pick, since Federer Is Dominant Clay Courter, maybe weak Clay field)
2.Juan Carlos Ferrero( Injured so maybe he would have been much better)
3.Carlos Moya
4.Guillermo Coria
5.Andre Agassi( 3 finals deserves to be here)
6.Sergi Bruguera
7.Thomas Muster
8.Jim Courier
9.Albert Costa
10.Alex Corretja
11.Alberto Berasategui
12.Yevgeny Kafelnikov
13.Andres Gomez
14.Andrei Medvedev
15.Gaston Gaudio
16.Roger Federer
17.Michael Chang( One slam Wonder)





Alex Corretja

Lets see:

-Coria at #4 ahead of Bruguera, Muster, and Courier (and 1 of the 2 Roger Federer's)

-Roger Federer at both #1 and #16. Maybe his split personalities on clay?

-Alex Corretja at both #10 yet also way below #17 Michael Chang.

-Chang who made 3 other slam finals and another French Open final as a one slam wonder, but no mention of any of Gomez, Moya, or Gaudio of all people being a one slam wonder.


Funniest list ever! Great stuff.