Top 10 of the Open Era now on clay (and where Novak fits)

[mattosgrant]

This is how I would have it now and where I would slot Djokovic:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Vilas
7. Djokovic
8. Courier
9. Muster
10. Bruguera

Honorable mentions (just missing out on top 10)- Laver (Open Era only), Rosewall (Open Era only), Federer, Kodes, Ferrero

I suspect many here would have him higher though. What do you think.

 

[NatF]

Courier and Muster at their best were better. Achievement wise it's a bit more dicey IMO.

 

[VamosBamos987]

Fed, Courier, Muster all above

 

[mattosgrant]

Courier and Muster at their best were better. Achievement wise it's a bit more dicey IMO.

Muster is way overrated. I considered putting him behind Fed on clay (I cant really consider Bruguera too much given his ownage of Bruguera) but only didn't due to respect for his huge # of clay titles. People think he is this super great clay courter simply since that was the only thing he was good at.

I have seen him play even in his prime and while his fitness and resilence on the surface was incredible even on clay he has a mediocre backhand, not great serve, cant volley, movement is good but nowhere near as fast or explosive as guys like Djokovic, Nadal, Borg, Chang, or even Federer or Ferrero. He had a great forehand although even on clay it could be overspun and land short.

I have no doubt Djokovic would beat Muster the majority of the time prime to prime on clay. I think Federer would as well.

 

[Mainad]

Muster is way overrated. I considered putting him behind Fed on clay (I cant really consider Bruguera too much given his ownage of Bruguera) but only didn't due to respect for his huge # of clay titles. People think he is this super great clay courter simply since that was the only thing he was good at.

I have seen him play even in his prime and while his fitness and resilence on the surface was incredible even on clay he has a mediocre backhand, not great serve, cant volley, movement is good but nowhere near as fast or explosive as guys like Djokovic, Nadal, Borg, Chang, or even Federer or Ferrero. He had a great forehand although even on clay it could be overspun and land short.

I have no doubt Djokovic would beat Muster the majority of the time prime to prime on clay. I think Federer would as well.

In addition to his 1995 RG title, Muster also has 6 clay Masters titles (3 at MC and 3 at Rome) which is exactly the same number for Fed (4 at Hamburg, 2 at Madrid). However, Fed has more RG finals so that will give him the edge. In addition to his clay titles, Muster won 2 hardcourt Masters (1995 Essen and 1997 Miami) so he wasn't completely useless on other surfaces.

 

[tennis_pro]

How the hell is Djokovic ahead of Courier?

Why isn't Federer on the list? He's a better clay courter than Djokovic.

JOKE LIST.

 

[mattosgrant]

In addition to his 1995 RG title, Muster also has 6 clay Masters titles (3 at MC and 3 at Rome) which is exactly the same number for Fed (4 at Hamburg, 2 at Madrid). However, Fed has more RG finals so that will give him the edge. In addition to his clay titles, Muster won 2 hardcourt Masters (1995 Essen and 1997 Miami) so he wasn't completely useless on other surfaces.

Fair enough. I am biased since I really disliked Muster. I hated his game, hated his personality, and while I am of the belief PED use is widespread in elite sport Muster was one of the most obvious and blatant cases ever. He won almost entirely through will and insane (PED aided) fitness, since his actual technique on everything (shots or movement) was horrible, and he was only a moderately good athlete.

When he lost at Roland Garros in 1996 which I had conceded he was a mortal lock to win, I had a party with some of my high school friends just celebrating it. I would been happy even if it led to Sampras (someone else I dislike but much less than Muster) winning RG. I would never do that today of course, I was only 15 and not the most mature, but it gives some insight into how big a Muster fan I was, LOL!

 

[Nonsense]

This is how I would have it now and where I would slot Djokovic:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Vilas
7. Djokovic
8. Courier
9. Muster
10. Bruguera

Honorable mentions (just missing out on top 10)- Laver (Open Era only), Rosewall (Open Era only), Federer, Kodes, Ferrero

I suspect many here would have him higher though. What do you think.

Could you also give reasons for why you rank them that way? Achievements on clay etc?

 

[mattosgrant]

Could you also give reasons for why you rank them that way? Achievements on clay etc?

I will try and do a rough breakdown on my thinking:

1. Nadal- 9 RG titles, dominance on clay beyond any other.

2. Borg- 6 RG titles, comparable dominance at his peak to Nadal on clay actually. IMO higher level of play on clay than Nadal, but simply not enough longevity or achievements relative to be over Nadal.

3. Lendl- 3 RG titles like Wilander and Kuerten but easily beats both in overall clay achievements, and easily bests Wilander anyway in level of play too.

4. Kuerten- In achievements overall is behind Wilander, but both have 3 RG titles, and personally I think Kuerten at his best would wreck Wilander.

5. Wilander

6. Vilas- 2 clay titles out of basically 1.2 clay slams per year (U.S Open was on clay but only for 3 years), 7 Clay Masters, and 40+ clay titles. When he wasn't playing Borg who was a nightmare match up for him was scary great on clay.

7. Djokovic- 8 Career Masters, including 4 Rome titles, and now with the RG title and all his other finals there has to be over all other 1 time RG winners, and some of the 2 RG winners too.

8. Courier- giving him large credit for dominating the 92 RG event with a super tough draw full of formidable clay courters, winning back to back RG titles, and very nearly doing the 3 peat. Was considered best clay courter in the world from 91-93, despite the upset loss in the 93 RG final.

9. Muster- As mentioned giving him lots of credit for his massive clay title count and general 95-96 dominance on clay.

10. Bruguera- like Courier defended his RG title, and has many other clay titles and clay success. These last 3 could be argued in any order really. He was owned badly by Muster, and Muster was owned badly by Courier (Bruguera did well vs Courier but hardly owned him) so that impacted my order of those three as well.

 

[Nonsense]

I will try and do a rough breakdown on my thinking:

1. Nadal- 9 RG titles, dominance on clay beyond any other.

2. Borg- 6 RG titles, comparable dominance at his peak to Nadal on clay actually. IMO higher level of play on clay than Nadal, but simply not enough longevity or achievements relative to be over Nadal.

3. Lendl- 3 RG titles like Wilander and Kuerten but easily beats both in overall clay achievements, and easily bests Wilander anyway in level of play too.

4. Kuerten- In achievements overall is behind Wilander, but both have 3 RG titles, and personally I think Kuerten at his best would wreck Wilander.

5. Wilander

6. Vilas- 2 clay titles out of basically 1.2 clay slams per year (U.S Open was on clay but only for 3 years), 7 Clay Masters, and 40+ clay titles. When he wasn't playing Borg who was a nightmare match up for him was scary great on clay.

7. Djokovic- 8 Career Masters, including 4 Rome titles, and now with the RG title and all his other finals there has to be over all other 1 time RG winners, and some of the 2 RG winners too.

8. Courier- giving him large credit for dominating the 92 RG event with a super tough draw full of formidable clay courters, winning back to back RG titles, and very nearly doing the 3 peat. Was considered best clay courter in the world from 91-93, despite the upset loss in the 93 RG final.

9. Muster- As mentioned giving him lots of credit for his massive clay title count and general 95-96 dominance on clay.

10. Bruguera- like Courier defended his RG title, and has many other clay titles and clay success. These last 3 could be argued in any order really. He was owned badly by Muster, and Muster was owned badly by Courier (Bruguera did well vs Courier but hardly owned him) so that impacted my order of those three as well.

Ahh... looking at your list then, I suppose Novak could get to 3rd or so by the time he retires? Will probably need 2 more RG and a few more Masters?

He already has some impressive numbers on clay in terms of %ages. 4th best win % at RG, also the 4th best win % on clay in the open era.

Would be an incredible achievement for him if he can get to the top-10 of open era on all the different surfaces respectively.

 

[VamosBamos987]

How the hell is Djokovic ahead of Courier?

Why isn't Federer on the list? He's a better clay courter than Djokovic.

JOKE LIST.

Agreed, not only is this a joke tennis era but also joke TTW poster quality

 

[Chadillac]

It looks like a list of the greatest french open players, not clay courters

 

[VamosBamos987]

I will try and do a rough breakdown on my thinking:

1. Nadal- 9 RG titles, dominance on clay beyond any other.

2. Borg- 6 RG titles, comparable dominance at his peak to Nadal on clay actually. IMO higher level of play on clay than Nadal, but simply not enough longevity or achievements relative to be over Nadal.

3. Lendl- 3 RG titles like Wilander and Kuerten but easily beats both in overall clay achievements, and easily bests Wilander anyway in level of play too.

4. Kuerten- In achievements overall is behind Wilander, but both have 3 RG titles, and personally I think Kuerten at his best would wreck Wilander.

5. Wilander

6. Vilas- 2 clay titles out of basically 1.2 clay slams per year (U.S Open was on clay but only for 3 years), 7 Clay Masters, and 40+ clay titles. When he wasn't playing Borg who was a nightmare match up for him was scary great on clay.

7. Djokovic- 8 Career Masters, including 4 Rome titles, and now with the RG title and all his other finals there has to be over all other 1 time RG winners, and some of the 2 RG winners too.

8. Courier- giving him large credit for dominating the 92 RG event with a super tough draw full of formidable clay courters, winning back to back RG titles, and very nearly doing the 3 peat. Was considered best clay courter in the world from 91-93, despite the upset loss in the 93 RG final.

9. Muster- As mentioned giving him lots of credit for his massive clay title count and general 95-96 dominance on clay.

10. Bruguera- like Courier defended his RG title, and has many other clay titles and clay success. These last 3 could be argued in any order really. He was owned badly by Muster, and Muster was owned badly by Courier (Bruguera did well vs Courier but hardly owned him) so that impacted my order of those three as well.

Borg peak clay higher than Nadal peak clay? Hah

 

[mattosgrant]

Borg peak clay higher than Nadal peak clay? Hah

Borg has a better serve, better volleys, better return of serve, and better backhand than Nadal on any surface, clay included. He is just as fast as Borg, atleast as fit. At RG 79 he was equally dominant to Nadal at RG 08 but against a stronger field of clay courters. Why wouldn't he have a great shot vs Nadal on clay peak to peak? Nadal struggles against Djokovic who isn't going to be a top 3 clay courter in the Open Era, maybe not a top 5; and to a lesser degree against Federer who isn't even a top 7 clay courter in the Open Era, maybe not a top 10. Borg destroys Vilas who is clearly superior to Federer on clay, and arguably superior to Djokovic for the moment (although Djokovic by the end of his career probably eclipses Vilas).

 

[bjsnider]

Where would these forums be without arguments about subjective rankings?

 

[mattosgrant]

Ahh... looking at your list then, I suppose Novak could get to 3rd or so by the time he retires? Will probably need 2 more RG and a few more Masters?

He already has some impressive numbers on clay in terms of %ages. 4th best win % at RG, also the 4th best win % on clay in the open era.

Would be an incredible achievement for him if he can get to the top-10 of open era on all the different surfaces respectively.

I think Djokovic with 3 RG titles would definitely be 3rd. He already has an outrageous collection in Masters titles and impressive array of finals, semis, and quarters at RG.

Even with just 2 RG titles he would have a case to be 3rd, and I would probably put him no lower than 4th behind Lendl at that point.

 

[mattosgrant]

It looks like a list of the greatest french open players, not clay courters

Obviously not otherwise I wouldn't have ever included Muster who doesn't even have a top 30 French Open record in the Open Era. Vilas wouldn't have made it either.

 

[tennis_pro]

Borg has a better serve, better volleys, better return of serve, and better backhand than Nadal on any surface, clay included. He is just as fast as Borg, atleast as fit. At RG 79 he was equally dominant to Nadal at RG 08 but against a stronger field of clay courters. Why wouldn't he have a great shot vs Nadal on clay peak to peak? Nadal struggles against Djokovic who isn't going to be a top 3 clay courter in the Open Era, maybe not a top 5; and to a lesser degree against Federer who isn't even a top 7 clay courter in the Open Era, maybe not a top 10. Borg destroys Vilas who is clearly superior to Federer on clay, and arguably superior to Djokovic for the moment (although Djokovic by the end of his career probably eclipses Vilas).

Peak Federer would wipe the floor with Vilas on any surface.

 

[mattosgrant]

How the hell is Djokovic ahead of Courier?

Courier only having 2 clay Masters would be a good start.

Why isn't Federer on the list? He's a better clay courter than Djokovic.

Unfortunately as the other thread indicates the extreme majority disagree with you on that now, including most of your fellow Fed bots.

JOKE LIST.

This coming from the guy who said a few months ago Fed should rank above Kuerten on clay.

 

[tennis_pro]

Courier only having 2 clay Masters would be a good start.

2 FO > 1 FO, nuff said. You're clearly into stats only given that Djokovic is doing nothing special to win Slams today.

Unfortunately as the other thread indicates the extreme majority disagree with you on that now, including most of your fellow Fed bots.

names

This coming from the guy who said a few months ago Fed should rank above Kuerten on clay.

when exactly, quote me

 

[mattosgrant]

Peak Federer would wipe the floor with Vilas on any surface.

Yes in your world peak Fed would wipe the floor with everyone peak Fed didn't play. Just like peak Federer would supposably crush peak Djokovic on every surface according to you, even at the Australian Open where Djokovic will probably wind up with about double the titles and is 3-1 vs Fed. I am sure if peak Fed didn't actually play and get his butt whooped repeatedly by Nadal (especialy on clay) you would be saying peak Fed would obviously own peak Nadal on clay too. In fact I 100% guarantee. As it is you probably think peak Fed would do well against peak Borg on clay as well, since a time machine cant be invented to make a mockery of that.

 

[Nonsense]

I think Djokovic with 3 RG titles would definitely be 3rd. He already has an outrageous collection in Masters titles and impressive array of finals, semis, and quarters at RG.

Even with just 2 RG titles he would have a case to be 3rd, and I would probably put him no lower than 4th behind Lendl at that point.

That would be pretty incredible for what is his less accomplished surface... though maybe grass should be that even if he's going for a three-peat at Wimbledon this year.

 

[Chadillac]

Obviously not otherwise I wouldn't have ever included Muster who doesn't even have a top 30 French Open record in the Open Era. Vilas wouldn't have made it either.

This maybe a tough one, i did a quick search and found nothing. How many matches have these guys won on clay, you seem focused on titles .

Fed has been in the french open final 5 times, winning once. Djok has been in the final 4times, winning once.

Courier and the other guys had to play 3 out of 5 sets (mens tennis), djok is getting his masters in the wta format.

 

[VamosBamos987]

Yes in your world peak Fed would wipe the floor with everyone peak Fed didn't play. Just like peak Federer would supposably crush peak Djokovic on every surface according to you, even at the Australian Open where Djokovic will probably wind up with about double the titles and is 3-1 vs Fed. I am sure if peak Fed didn't actually play and get his butt whooped repeatedly by Nadal (especialy on clay) you would be saying peak Fed would obviously own peak Nadal on clay too. In fact I 100% guarantee. As it is you probably think peak Fed would do well against peak Borg on clay as well, since a time machine cant be invented to make a mockery of that.

But peak Fed would in fact beat peak Djokovic everywhere.

Peak Fed is nearly unmatched. It's extraordinary. Fantastic to watch, legendary.

 

[tennis_pro]

Yes in your world peak Fed would wipe the floor with everyone peak Fed didn't play. Just like peak Federer would supposably crush peak Djokovic on every surface according to you, even at the Australian Open where Djokovic will probably wind up with about double the titles and is 3-1 vs Fed.

On Plexicushion Djokovic would be better even though we haven't seen peak Federer there for confirmation.

I am sure if peak Fed didn't actually play and get his butt whooped repeatedly by Nadal (especialy on clay) you would be saying peak Fed would obviously own peak Nadal on clay too. In fact I 100% guarantee. As it is you probably think peak Fed would do well against peak Borg on clay as well, since a time machine cant be invented to make a mockery of that.

Nope, I wouldn't.

 

[VamosBamos987]

Peak Nadal beats Djokovic every time at FO, they split at USO, Djokovic gets 75% grass, 75% AO

 

[mattosgrant]

2 FO > 1 FO, nuff said.

So in that case do you concede that Kodes, Courier, and Bruguera > Federer on clay as well? After all 2 FO > 1 FO. Yeah I thought so (I don't even have to wait for the answer given that it is you), next. Also will you be conceding Djokovic > Federer on clay if/when he wins a 2nd FO (of course not).

You're clearly into stats only

You say that but then you post the most simplistic stat there is (2 RG titles > 1) as your supposed evidence. Amusing.

names

You can read through the thread yourself. It is still on the first page. For starters you will notice a thread that is titled "Djokovic is better than Federer on clay" started by one of the biggest Fed homers on this whole site- Mike Danny.

when exactly, quote me

I have better things to do than to collect quotes from one of the worst posters here, but I specifically remember it. I might look up Kuerten and tennis_pro later on though and will surely find it for you. And if you do find it for you how will you explain away 1 RG > 3 RG, when apparently 2 RG > 1 RG for better clay courter automatically, damn all else.

 

[mattosgrant]

This maybe a tough one, i did a quick search and found nothing. How many matches have these guys won on clay, you seem focused on titles .

Fed has been in the french open final 5 times, winning once. Djok has been in the final 4times, winning once.

Courier and the other guys had to play 3 out of 5 sets (mens tennis), djok is getting his masters in the wta format.

Djokovic is the fittest player on tour. A best of 5 format would favor him, not hurt him.

Vilas has 49 clay titles and Muster 40. Are you saying I am wrong to consider their titles, before you said it was wrong to only focus on RG so what do you want exactly. I tried my best to factor everything, but if you don't like my list you are free to make a better one. That is what I wanted people to do anyway, make their own lists.

 

[tennis_pro]

So in that case do you concede that Kodes, Courier, and Bruguera > Federer on clay as well? After all 2 FO > 1 FO. Yeah I thought so (I don't even have to wait for the answer given that it is you), next. Also will you be conceding Djokovic > Federer on clay if/when he wins a 2nd FO (of course not).

The fact is - you created your list solely based on stats and then twisted them around to put Djokovic as high as possible. You either go with stats or with your subjective POV. How the hell can you put Muster ahead of Federer on the surface, then?

You say that but then you post the most simplistic stat there is (2 RG titles > 1) as your supposed evidence. Amusing.

You're doing the exact same thing just in favor of Djokovic.

I have better things to do than to collect quotes from one of the worst posters here, but I specifically remember it. I might look up Kuerten and tennis_pro later on though and will surely find it for you. And if you do find it for you how will you explain away 1 RG > 3 RG, when apparently 2 RG > 1 RG for better clay courter automatically, damn all else.

I'd have to see the context when I said that (if I did) but Kuerten is a better clay courter than Federer, no doubt about that.

 

[duaneeo]

Djokovic #7 but Roger not even top-10? I think for any top-whatever clay list, Roger ranks right behind Djokovic...definitely not 4+ steps behind him.

 

[mattosgrant]

Djokovic #7 but Roger not even top-10? I think for any top-whatever clay list, Roger ranks right behind Djokovic...definitely not 4+ steps behind him.

I think Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Federer, Kodes, Laver (Open Era only, entire career he is clearly above those others), Rosewall (Open Era only, entire career he is a top 3 clay courter all time), are all roughly equal. 8th to 14th could be placed in any order. So if you say Federer should be 8th right behind Djokovic, that is perfectly reasonable, like I said I had a hard time once I got past Djokovic with the next 7. Also each are only a bit behind #6 an #7 Vilas and Djokovic, but still clearly behind, even if a small margin.

 

[mightyrick]

As a courtesy to newer posters, can we get a thread of Top-10 crack smoking, Djokovic-fanboy, statisticians?

That way, newer posters can properly set their expectations before reading some users' threads.

 

[Mainad]

Fair enough. I am biased since I really disliked Muster. I hated his game, hated his personality, and while I am of the belief PED use is widespread in elite sport Muster was one of the most obvious and blatant cases ever. He won almost entirely through will and insane (PED aided) fitness, since his actual technique on everything (shots or movement) was horrible, and he was only a moderately good athlete.

Do you know for a fact Muster was juicing or did you just suspect it? He was never caught as far as I recall. He did have a bad accident in Miami (hit by a car) which put him out of action for a long while.

When he lost at Roland Garros in 1996 which I had conceded he was a mortal lock to win, I had a party with some of my high school friends just celebrating it. I would been happy even if it led to Sampras (someone else I dislike but much less than Muster) winning RG. I would never do that today of course, I was only 15 and not the most mature, but it gives some insight into how big a Muster fan I was, LOL!

What exactly did you dislike so much about Muster's personality? Arrogance? PEDs? I was never really aware of him at the time he was playing as, unless someone did well at Wimbledon, they were never on my radar back then tennis-wise. I share your dislike of Sampras actually. Great player and champion but I could never warm to him. He always seemed so cold and arrogant. We like to make fun of Federer's so-called arrogance on here but I think Sampras could have given him lessons.

 

[Hyde]

Muster is way overrated. I considered putting him behind Fed on clay (I cant really consider Bruguera too much given his ownage of Bruguera) but only didn't due to respect for his huge # of clay titles. People think he is this super great clay courter simply since that was the only thing he was good at.

I have seen him play even in his prime and while his fitness and resilence on the surface was incredible even on clay he has a mediocre backhand, not great serve, cant volley, movement is good but nowhere near as fast or explosive as guys like Djokovic, Nadal, Borg, Chang, or even Federer or Ferrero. He had a great forehand although even on clay it could be overspun and land short.

I have no doubt Djokovic would beat Muster the majority of the time prime to prime on clay. I think Federer would as well.

I also think Muster and some other guys were lucky that the best 90's players like Sampras, Agassi, Becker etc were not that good on clay.

If Federer and Djokovic had played in the 90's, they could easily have 3-5 French Open titles. They were unlucky to compete with Nadal. Credits to Nadal for keeping Federer and Djokovic at just 1 RG in their careers.

 

[Krish872007]

Do you know for a fact Muster was juicing or did you just suspect it? He was never caught as far as I recall. He did have a bad accident in Miami (hit by a car) which put him out of action for a long while.



What exactly did you dislike so much about Muster's personality? Arrogance? PEDs? I was never really aware of him at the time he was playing as, unless someone did well at Wimbledon, they were never on my radar back then tennis-wise. I share your dislike of Sampras actually. Great player and champion but I could never warm to him. He always seemed so cold and arrogant. We like to make fun of Federer's so-called arrogance on here but I think Sampras could have given him lessons.

"So Pete, what do you think is the difference between you and Pat Rafter?" (Interview after Pete lost the 1998 Cincinnati Final)

Pete: "Hmm, about 10 Slams."

 

[Incognito]

Greatness
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Bruguera
7. Courier
8. Federer
9. Djokovic
10. Muster

Peak Level
1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Borg
4. Kuerten
5. Lendl
6. Wilander
7. Bruguera
8. Djokovic
9. Courier
10. Ferrero

 

[mattosgrant]

I also think Muster and some other guys were lucky that the best 90's players like Sampras, Agassi, Becker etc were not that good on clay.

This is absolutely true. The real best and most talented guys of that era were not clay courters which left a giant void for the so called best clay specialists. On the flip side there were a lot more clay specialists and depth through an entire field than there is today. Which leads me to....

If Federer and Djokovic had played in the 90's, they could easily have 3-5 French Open titles. They were unlucky to compete with Nadal. Credits to Nadal for keeping Federer and Djokovic at just 1 RG in their careers.

......Todays era is kind of a chicken and egg thing since yes Djokovic and Fed were unlucky with Nadal, but then again they were lucky the clay field in their time had NO (and I mean absolutely NONE at all) depth, or any real clay specialists. Even Nadal was, but to a much lesser degree just because he is Nadal on clay. I see both sides to the argument.

 

[mattosgrant]

Peak Level
2. Federer
3. Borg
4. Kuerten

BWAHAHAHAAH thanks for the gigantic side splitting laugh. I needed it after a long week. Fed fanatics at their finest yet again.

 

[mattosgrant]

Do you know for a fact Muster was juicing or did you just suspect it? He was never caught as far as I recall. He did have a bad accident in Miami (hit by a car) which put him out of action for a long while.

I strongly suspect it but as a former pro athlete and top college athlete who saw many friends and teammates who doped (even if I didn't myself) I see many of the signs of a glaringly obvious doper. No I don't know for a fact, but pretty much every guy in the top 10 openly said they believed Muster was a doper too (which is quite rare).

What exactly did you dislike so much about Muster's personality? Arrogance? PEDs? I was never really aware of him at the time he was playing as, unless someone did well at Wimbledon, they were never on my radar back then tennis-wise.

Oh boy where to start. He complained he didn't get enough respect, complained when the computer didn't put him #1 fast enough (even though he was a clay only specialist mainly who was vulturing a flawed system at the time, under todays system he would get nowhere near #1 even in his 95-96 peak), was generally unfriendly, a poor sport often, dissed many of his rivals in press conferences, grunted like a pig being butchered, threatened to start fights with guys he didn't like (eg- Agassi, Courier, Becker) in press conferences.

I share your dislike of Sampras actually. Great player and champion but I could never warm to him. He always seemed so cold and arrogant. We like to make fun of Federer's so-called arrogance on here but I think Sampras could have given him lessons.

ITA on all that. And Federer is a sweetheart compared to Pete. I loved watching Pete play tennis on fast courts though, at his best there was never a better display regardless if he no longer has GOAT stats and all. I don't think he was a bad guy, just one with limited social etiquette and who wasn't easy to warm to.

 

[Chadillac]

Djokovic is the fittest player on tour. A best of 5 format would favor him, not hurt him.

Vilas has 49 clay titles and Muster 40. Are you saying I am wrong to consider their titles, before you said it was wrong to only focus on RG so what do you want exactly. I tried my best to factor everything, but if you don't like my list you are free to make a better one. That is what I wanted people to do anyway, make their own lists.

Im saying you should consider matches won on the surface. Id think fed has many more matches won than the other players you mentioned.

 

[Incognito]

BWAHAHAHAAH thanks for the gigantic side splitting laugh. I needed it after a long week. Fed fanatics at their finest yet again.

And your disdain for everything Federer or Nadal related makes you an objective poster?


What's the matter NadalAgassi, you used to be a Nadal fan.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I will try and do a rough breakdown on my thinking:

1. Nadal- 9 RG titles, dominance on clay beyond any other.

2. Borg- 6 RG titles, comparable dominance at his peak to Nadal on clay actually. IMO higher level of play on clay than Nadal, but simply not enough longevity or achievements relative to be over Nadal.

3. Lendl- 3 RG titles like Wilander and Kuerten but easily beats both in overall clay achievements, and easily bests Wilander anyway in level of play too.

4. Kuerten- In achievements overall is behind Wilander, but both have 3 RG titles, and personally I think Kuerten at his best would wreck Wilander.

5. Wilander

6. Vilas- 2 clay titles out of basically 1.2 clay slams per year (U.S Open was on clay but only for 3 years), 7 Clay Masters, and 40+ clay titles. When he wasn't playing Borg who was a nightmare match up for him was scary great on clay.

7. Djokovic- 8 Career Masters, including 4 Rome titles, and now with the RG title and all his other finals there has to be over all other 1 time RG winners, and some of the 2 RG winners too.

8. Courier- giving him large credit for dominating the 92 RG event with a super tough draw full of formidable clay courters, winning back to back RG titles, and very nearly doing the 3 peat. Was considered best clay courter in the world from 91-93, despite the upset loss in the 93 RG final.

9. Muster- As mentioned giving him lots of credit for his massive clay title count and general 95-96 dominance on clay.

10. Bruguera- like Courier defended his RG title, and has many other clay titles and clay success. These last 3 could be argued in any order really. He was owned badly by Muster, and Muster was owned badly by Courier (Bruguera did well vs Courier but hardly owned him) so that impacted my order of those three as well.

Good list, but both Fed and Novak would easily be top 5 had they never had to contend with clay GOAT. Does anyone really feel that Courier or Wilander could have toppled Nadal in any of those finals?

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Greatness
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Bruguera
7. Courier
8. Federer
9. Djokovic
10. Muster

Peak Level
1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Borg
4. Kuerten
5. Lendl
6. Wilander
7. Bruguera
8. Djokovic
9. Courier
10. Ferrero

I know you will catch heat for putting Fed so high here but you are right that his peak level on clay was awesome. The 2006 Rome final was some of the greatest tennis ever played on clay.

 

[metsman]

Peak Federer would wipe the floor with Vilas on any surface.

yeah...people really need to stop pretending that guys like Wilander/Vilas/Bruguera/Muster would beat peak Fed on clay. Muster especially is a massive LOL as Federer has a better clay resume and Muster compiled most his numbers in a joke clay era anyways...the others sure as they have multiple majors on dirt so you can argue they have better resume's but put Fed in their spots and he would put up similar numbers most likely. Peak Federer simply did not lose to guys with that profile. He lost to guys who could beat him BH to BH and stretch him to the FH with the BH DTL(and even then he needed to be clearly below his best for those losses to happen) or Nadal. Wilander/Vilas/Bruguera/Muster do not come close to fitting that profile. They have the spin and consistency but being righties they can't get it consistently to the Federer BH. They are all great defenders but not on Nadal's level where he makes Federer seriously press. Federer would dictate play with the FH and hit them off the court. Something like what he did to Coria.

 

[metsman]

I know you will catch heat for putting Fed so high here but you are right that his peak level on clay was awesome. The 2006 Rome final was some of the greatest tennis ever played on clay.

I think Federer at 2 above Borg is nuts but in terms of peak level he could have a case starting as high as 3.

 

[metsman]

BWAHAHAHAAH thanks for the gigantic side splitting laugh. I needed it after a long week. Fed fanatics at their finest yet again.

Federer above Borg is nuts I agree but in peak play you can argue for him at 3-5 along with Kuerten and Lendl). Of course overall I would put him behind Kuerten and Lendl. However, in the last few days Djokovic fans have said among many other things that Tommy Haas is a journeyman, Murray could beat peak Federer at majors, and that Djokovic has the variety of Federer so this doesn't come close to beating that I am afraid.

 

[metsman]

"So Pete, what do you think is the difference between you and Pat Rafter?" (Interview after Pete lost the 1998 Cincinnati Final)

Pete: "Hmm, about 10 Slams."

Sampras was the freakin man. I know some were put off by his personality but I loved the quiet and subtle snark/arrogance. And of course I loved what he did on court and inspiring me and many other Americans to put a lot of focus into playing tennis and try to emulate the balls to the wall attacking style.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

If you get bageled and breadsticked in the same RG final, you don't belong on a top 10 list on clay.

Djokovic #7 but Roger not even top-10? I think for any top-whatever clay list, Roger ranks right behind Djokovic...definitely not 4+ steps behind him.

 

[duaneeo]

If you get bageled and breadsticked in the same RG final, you don't belong on a top 10 list on clay.

If you double-fault on break/championship point TWICE in a RG final, you don't belong on a top 20 list on clay.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

If you double-fault on break/championship point TWICE in a RG final, you don't belong on a top 20 list on clay.

Homie. Fed got bageled on a clay final, your specific points criticism is pathetic. But that's just the butthurt fanboys these days I guess. And you saying top 20? Little overcompensating are we? That insecure?