VamosBamos987
Hall of Fame
Noles average is similar to Fed, it's just that today's era is pathetic
Top 10 of the Open Era now on clay (and where Novak fits)
- Thread starter mattosgrant
- Start date
Mainad
Bionic Poster
He still achieved more on clay than any other American player with his back to back RG and back to back Rome titles.
Federer isn't lower than Muster or Vilas. In fact an argument could be made that he is still ahead of Djokovic - Federer 1 FO win, 4 runner-ups: Djokovic 1 FO win, 3 runner-ups. Djokovic has a marginally better Masters 1000 record on clay though (more titles but Federer has made more finals).
Mainad
Bionic Poster
I think titles must count for more than just finals though. Djokovic has 8 clay Masters titles to Federer's 6 and has won all 3 of them multiple times whilst Federer has never won Monte Carlo or Rome.
mattosgrant
Banned
Well given your addiction to ATP points counts I am pretty much certain Muster and Vilas would have collected more with their giant collection of 500 and 250 titles (along with as many RG and Masters titles as Fed, even if Fed has more runner ups at RG).
Actually I think the very idea of ranking Fed over Vilas on clay is crazy. Vilas with 2 slams on clay (yes he had another chance but U.S Open was only on clay for 3 years so it is not like he won 2 clay slams out of 2 clay slams per year, had the U.S Open been on clay in 05, 06, 07 Fed would still be unlikely to beat Nadal in any of those), 1 more Masters than Fed, over quadruple the clay titles, and also with several RG finals is somehow behind Fed? I think not. Even @cc0509 who is a huge Fed fan has conceded Vilas is clearly better than Fed on clay numerous times. Muster atleast I could see an argument for Federer against.
Tenez101
Banned
Nadal-Federer is still too close to call. I would still put it as this, though I've put Nadal as GOAT a few times in the past. I've said Djokovic has surpassed Nadal in the past few days, but really I think most people would still put Rafa higher. Djokovic cinches out Sampras just because of the career slam for me, but really they're at the same level.
Open Era all-time greats:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Laver
7. Agassi
8. Connors
9. Lendl
10. McEnroe
11. Wilander
12. Edberg
13. Becker
Open Era all-time greats:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Laver
7. Agassi
8. Connors
9. Lendl
10. McEnroe
11. Wilander
12. Edberg
13. Becker
mattosgrant
Banned
This is just on CLAY, only clay.
abmk
Bionic Poster
how I can think Bruguera is the better clay courter ?
jeez, how about an absolutely clearly higher peak level on clay ?
much better performance at RG, where it matters the most -- 2 RG wins, 1 more final, 1 more SF
muster had 1 RG win, 1 RG SF
post prime courier ? really ? 93 RG was peak courier ..bruguera beat him ..
94 slightly past his prime, but still not an easy win ..
had bruguera-muster met at RG, bruguera would've probably won ..
w.r.t. courier. bruguera beat him both times they met at RG and lost both times they met outside of it.
Tenez101
Banned
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
*facepalm*
*facepalm*
*facepalm*
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Wilander
5. Guga
6. Courier
7. Vilas
8. Brugera
9. Djokovic
10. Federer
mattosgrant
Banned
Glad to see I am not the only one who thinks Muster is overrated on clay. In fact it looks like I ranked him the highest of anyone so far, LOL!
Tenez101
Banned
Muster's only RG seemed like a lucky break or fluke more than anything. The definition of "one-hit wonder".
mattosgrant
Banned
In fairness to him he was the dominant clay courter in both 95 and 96 and was heavily favored to win RG both times. Yet despite that he got lucky to survive Costa in 95, and fell in the round of 16 to a non clay courter in 96.
Stich, who Muster lost to in 1996 - was the kind of player that even Sampras said was hugely talented. He made it all the way to the final and lost a close match there.
mattosgrant
Banned
I agree but it was still a bad loss for Muster on clay given his dominance at the time. Stich went on to lose in straight sets (yes a close match, but still straight sets) to Kafelnikov, the same Kafelnikov who Muster murdered only a couple months later in a clay final. Yes I know it is player X, player Y, player Z, but still.
You also havent justified your claim that I am wrong for putting Vilas over Federer which unless I hear some kind of solid explanation I find completely ridiculous. Muster vs Federer I can atleast easily see the arguments both way, and I dont even really need to hear them, as I have a pretty good idea what your reasoning for putting Federer ahead would be (valid, even if I disagree).
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Muster is hugely overrated completely agree. Took advantage of the joke clay era after Courier/Bruguera and before Kuerten. Good for him but using basically just those two years to put him over all these guys boggles the mind. Federer behind him despite the far superior RG record and same number of masters despite dealing with peak Nadal is just sad.
Muster may have had Bruguera's numbers but Bruguera did well against Courier and Courier at his best destroyed Muster. Given that, Bruguera's much superior RG record gives him the edge for me.
abmk
Bionic Poster
lets see Vilas at RG from 74 onwards :
74 - L to orantes in 5 -- this is not bad considering orantes was a fine CCer,
75 - L to borg , winning 9 games - not good
76 - l to solomon in QF , getting double breadsticked - fantastic !
77 - won, best scalp was ramirez , good, but not great ..
78 - l to borg, winning 5 games, not good
79 - l to pecci, winning 7 games, not good
80 - l to solomon in QF in 4 sets, again !
81 - lost to noah in 4 sets
82 - lost to wilander in 4 sets
getting ripped by borg ( which is of course a factor ) is not the biggest of his problems, its the rest of the record ...
getting thrashed by solomon and pecci ? come on !
contrast to federer from 2004 onwards
04 - lost to a kuerten who turned the clock back
05, 06,07,11 - lost to prime nadal in 4 sets
09 - won beating a tricky draw including a beasting del potro.
10 - lost to beasting soderling
08 - the most embarrassing loss - again equivalent of vilas' to borg in 78
..
I'm pretty sure federer would've won atleast 1 USO on green clay, maybe 2 in 3 years at his prime ...
mattosgrant
Banned
You obviously havent watched Bruguera-Muster play ever if you REALLY think Bruguera would have likely won had they played at RG. Are you saying for instance had Bruguera won the 95 semi with Chang (the closest they ever came to playing) he beats Muster in the final? I would bet tons of money on that not happening (and FWIW I despise Muster and he is one of my least favorite players ever).
I cant really agree with a higher peak level on clay given the way Muster absolutely owned clay in 95 and 96, despite the huge RG upset loss in 96. Particularly 95 where he went into RG on something like a 40 match win streak on clay, then won that as well. Bruguera never dominated clay anything close to that, even when winning his RG titles.
Courier was already starting a slow decline in 93. He had lost the mental edge he had in both 91 and 92, he said so himself. Also the 93 RG final was a huge upset. That was still a great win for Bruguera no question, but beating Courier in 94 was definitely a post prime Courier. I do think that match up is pretty even, unlike Muster-Bruguera (heavily in Muster's favor) and Muster-Courier (heavily in Courier's favor).
mattosgrant
Banned
So based on that one could say Federer was the slightly better RG performer/player (I agree) but definitely not far better like Muster, so that wouldnt be enough to overcome Vilas's many other edges on clay.
Get real, Nadal would still be clearly favored over Fed on green clay, even if Fed arguably would have a slightly better chance than red. Federer lost most of his matches on outdoor hard courts to Nadal, how on earth would he be the favorite or even a good chance over Nadal on any type of clay!?!?
The fact is Vilas still won 2 clay slams out of atleast 1.33 clay slams per year (counting only his semi prime years I guess) which is still better than Fed winning 1 clay slam out of 1 clay slam per year. It is worth more than 2 extra RG finals I would say. Then everything else Vilas easily beats Federer's clay record.
abmk
Bionic Poster
better by a significant margin ...
more # of smaller titles. I'd venture fed's performance in big CC tournaments ( apart from RG ) is better.
I was thinking in case of federer being in Vilas' place actually there .......
75 US Open
76 US Open
77 US Open
if prime federer had played those in place of Vilas', he 'd win one, maybe 2 ....
in case of present era, I'd say fed would have 1/4 to 1/3rd of a chance of beating nadal on green clay -- clay like madrid ... of course, he could still lose all 3 ...
---
again, Vilas didn't do anything federer couldn't have on green clay
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
Federer, right...
You are an objective one in every post...
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
WEEEEAAAAAKKKKKK.
better not come back than embarrass yourself with that weak point
Or, maybe that is best you can do in these desperate moments?
VamosBamos987
Hall of Fame
Aren't you the fool that said Novak had the most variety?
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
The most, not, however, your "objective" brain has translated it that way. Just like it translates some rather obvious and simple things.
Also, I'd suggest you focus on your dumb comments on this board rather than what two other posters commented
VamosBamos987
Hall of Fame
"He has the variety in his game more than any current top player, he can be offensive or defensive."
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, have to agree with you. Isn't that a sign of the end of times?
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
I'm saying it as it is, only people who can either outgrind him or get to his backhand can take him down when he's in his prime. Nadal could do both that's why he dominated him on the red dirt. Vilas would do neither.
I was perhaps hasty concerning Vilas. He could be above Federer on clay. I had temporarily forgotten about Vilas' US open win on clay in 1977. Yes, Vilas above Federer. Not Muster though. Federer's extra 4 runner-ups secure that lead.
Last edited:
xFedal
Legend
Feds 6 Slams in 2 Years record and 3x3Slam season record is under threat.
Indeed. I am always happy to give players credit, but only after they have achieved something - not because they could potentially achieve something. I do think that Djokovic will eventually have a superior clay record to Federer, and if it happens, I will credit to him then. But as at now their records are very close - it is pretty much a tie.
duaneeo
Legend
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
I am sure there is more to what I said and again, if you quote, put the whole thing. If you paraphrase, then acknowledge it.
Yes, more than Nadal, Wawa, Murray...
mattosgrant
Banned
I think Muster behind Fed is reasonable. Not Vilas for sure though.
Muster is complicated for me to rank as his RG record is disappointing to examine, but he has so many clay titles, and it is hard for me to overlook such a huge number (40), and I also remember his utter dominance and fear factor on clay well from 95 and 96 when I was a kid and he was my least favorite player, even over Sampras who I also strongly disliked. I do credit Fed's significantly better RG record, but still each ultimately have only 1 title, and Muster has almost quadruple the clay titles, and the same # of Masters (and at more prestigious venues generally).
Despite my uncertainty on Muster the one thing I am sure of is I would have Muster above Bruguera, regardless how Courier, Federer, and a couple others around their areas who could be ranked behind or ahead of both rank. Muster's total ownage of Bruguera over the years is too hard to ignore. And while Bruguera does have the big edge of an extra RG title, Muster makes that up with many more big clay titles (Masters and up) otherwise, tons more clay titles, and generally far greater dominance and intimidation factor on clay in 95-96 vs anything Bruguera had in 93-94.
VamosBamos987
Hall of Fame
Nope that's exactly what you wrote. Go back and check.
I still consider Federer greater than Nole mainly because he was facing a god mode Nadal from 2005-2010. During this period of dominance, Nadal was unbeatable on clay, and if you put any all time great clay courters in his era they would have been deprived from winning. Nole would not have won 8 Masters in his era. In fact, he only won 1 Master from 2005-10, and 7 during 2011-2016 when Nadal was not as great, and was much of a force in 2015-16. I think just using Nole having more Masters than Federer without context is deceptive. Another thing is Muster ranked high because of his 45 clay titles, but no way he would have been that successful had he was playing in 2005-10.
Federer made multiple finals in MC and Rome during 2005-2010 but of course he was facing a clay goat Nadal who was unbeatable, and set a record of 81 match winning streak. Keep in mind your boy(Murray) won his only 2 Masters on clay in 2015-16 when Nadal has nothing left.
Last edited:
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
LOL.
Team Nadal was in its absolute prime in 2011 and were planning on sweeping all majors right up to wimbledon 2012.
Something happened to their plan.
You all can twist it any which way you want but loose to make Fed this invincible god but reality is is that Djokovic has the positive H2h against Nadal not federer.
Nadal got solved by Djokovic.
It is Nadal's turn to figure him out again.
If he can not do it for whatever reason that is not tennis fans problem or djokovic's it is Nadal's problem.
Deal with it.
Fed for such a great player nver figured Nadal out or could not ever deal with Nadal's game.
Team Nadal was in its absolute prime in 2011 and were planning on sweeping all majors right up to wimbledon 2012.
Something happened to their plan.
You all can twist it any which way you want but loose to make Fed this invincible god but reality is is that Djokovic has the positive H2h against Nadal not federer.
Nadal got solved by Djokovic.
It is Nadal's turn to figure him out again.
If he can not do it for whatever reason that is not tennis fans problem or djokovic's it is Nadal's problem.
Deal with it.
Fed for such a great player nver figured Nadal out or could not ever deal with Nadal's game.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Exactly. Nadal beat Murray in Monte Carlo and went on to win the title as well as Barcelona where he defeated a very good Nishikori and also pushed Djokovic in a long, gruelling match in Rome so just because it might not have been the best ever version of him on clay doesn't mean those wins Andy and Novak had in Madrid and Rome respectively shouldn't be given any credit.
user
Professional
Federer made just 1 final of Rome during 2005-2010, it was in 2006.
Other 5 times he was not stopped by "clay goat Nadal", but
1. skipped 2005
2. Volandri
3. Stepanek (Djokovic won 2008 edition)
4. Djokovic
5. Gulbis
While I can understand why he never won Monte Carlo, there should be no excuses for Rome.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
I like your reasoning for Wilander. Perfect positioning
It's like an implicit "enough said" mattosgrant
Banned
So when it suits you only copy-and-past wikipedia lists with absolutely NO logic or context at all is fine, but when it doesnt suit you and players you dislike are involved (eg- Djokovic and Muster) suddenly it is all about logic, context, opinions, and numbers are meaningless. Oh TMF never change.
mattosgrant
Banned
Not to mention since Fed fans are such a big fan of the age theory lets use this now.
Nadal is 5 years younger than Fed, and if you talk about the 2005-2008 period (they almost never played on clay in 2009 and 2010 and were nowhere near playing at RG so those years are meaningless) 23 to 27 year old Federer always had the age advantage over 18 to 22 year old Nadal. You are supposed to be much more prime those ages. Even if we added 2009 the same would apply to 23 to 27 (Fed was still 27 at the end of the clay season) to 18 to barely 23.
Djokovic has no real age advantage or disadvantage to Nadal as they are virtually the same age, only 1 year apart. Only recently could you say Djokovic has a slight age advantage now that both are getting slightly old for tennis player standards.
The age situation was much easier on Federer during his real clay rivalry with Nadal (which obviously was never 2010 onwards despite their RG final in 2011) than Djokovic's has been on him against Nadal.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
Looks like this has turned into mike danny's thread about Djokovic and Federer on clay. Achievements wise, Fed really doesn't have a case there anymore IMO.
mattosgrant
Banned
I find my top 7 of Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander, Vilas, Djokovic, in that exact order extremely easy. Those are clearly the top 7 IMO, and in that exact order (I think Djokovic is better than Vilas, but he isnt more successful, although I think he will be).
Where I have a difficult time is in ranking the roughly 7 after that of Muster, Bruguera, Federer, Laver (Open Era only), Rosewall (Open Era only), Kodes, Courier. I go back and forth and find so many different orders you could put those in. Muster in a way I dont like to rank high since I find his RG record pretty weak, but his clay credentials beyond that (40 titles, so many Rome and Monte Carlo titles, complete dominance of clay in 95 and 96 are hard to ignore). I want to rank him lower, particularly since he is just about my least favorite player ever, but in good conscious I find I cant. The Muster, Bruguera, Courier rankings are also difficult since it seems Muster > Bruguera, Courier > Muster, but Bruguera > Courier. Ranking Fed vs Bruguera and Courier is hard since those guys have an extra RG title and even defended their RG title (then made a 3rd final) which is huge, but Fed has a significantly better Masters record than both. Kodes is hard since he has 2 RG titles and an impressive clay resume in everyway, but the fields he won his RG titles were a bit depleted, particularly the 2nd, due to the money exos going on in tennis back then. Laver was probably the best on clay 2 or 3 different years in the late 60s/early 70s but often skipped RG, so only won it once when he probably would have won it more often had he played, but won alot of clay events. I believe Rosewall won RG twice in the Open Era period but would need to check on that again to know for sure.
Ferrero or Orantes arent even far off that group either.
Where I have a difficult time is in ranking the roughly 7 after that of Muster, Bruguera, Federer, Laver (Open Era only), Rosewall (Open Era only), Kodes, Courier. I go back and forth and find so many different orders you could put those in. Muster in a way I dont like to rank high since I find his RG record pretty weak, but his clay credentials beyond that (40 titles, so many Rome and Monte Carlo titles, complete dominance of clay in 95 and 96 are hard to ignore). I want to rank him lower, particularly since he is just about my least favorite player ever, but in good conscious I find I cant. The Muster, Bruguera, Courier rankings are also difficult since it seems Muster > Bruguera, Courier > Muster, but Bruguera > Courier. Ranking Fed vs Bruguera and Courier is hard since those guys have an extra RG title and even defended their RG title (then made a 3rd final) which is huge, but Fed has a significantly better Masters record than both. Kodes is hard since he has 2 RG titles and an impressive clay resume in everyway, but the fields he won his RG titles were a bit depleted, particularly the 2nd, due to the money exos going on in tennis back then. Laver was probably the best on clay 2 or 3 different years in the late 60s/early 70s but often skipped RG, so only won it once when he probably would have won it more often had he played, but won alot of clay events. I believe Rosewall won RG twice in the Open Era period but would need to check on that again to know for sure.
Ferrero or Orantes arent even far off that group either.
Service Ace
Hall of Fame
mattosgrant is an extreme troll and will likely be joining 90s Clay and 636160 in the HOF if he keeps it up
mattosgrant
Banned
Yes which is why I am one of the most respected and admired individuals here, even by the fan bases of players I dislike such as Federer and Nadal, due to my objectivity, fairness, immense knowledge, logic, reason, respect for others, politeness, and well articulated arguments. You on the other hand are commonly regarded as a joke and mocked by all but your fellow extreme trolls such as TMF, 5555, tennisaddict, cockneyDjokovic, timnz, etc...You are never able to articulate a halfway decent thought or argument with anything but insults and innuendos. Keep up the jealousy of both my posting skill, tennis knowledge, and vastly superior life to your own my friend.
Service Ace
Hall of Fame
Lol this post reeks of insecurity. Bragging about your posting skills? Lol you're as delusion as you are arrogant. No wonder you were such a failure in your career and life. Just another weak, approval seeking loser.
Last edited:
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
What was your prediction on Djokovic's future at the French Open once he won his 1st?
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Yes agreed.
The problem with these fedal weak era clowns is that their arguments end up in circular logic.
They fail either way. If it is truly a weak era their theories fail. If it is not a weak era their theories fail.
Nothing they propose is based in the scientific method.
All hearsay and agenda based negativity to prop up fedal to these mythical heights.
However this is only done within their minds.
Anyone with a shred of scientific knowledge and decency see it for what it is.
Delusional unhinged ranting based in fantasy.
They want Fed to have the H2h against Nadal.
They want Nadal to be undefeated when he wins and loses and is 100%.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
You will notice in this orwellian corporate fascist world no means yes.
Extreme means moderate.
As a moderate tennis fan posting on here you will get labeled an extreme troll.
They will try to drive you off.
Can not blame this place when a reality TV show star who is orange and a snake oil salesmen will be the leader of the free world.
Have you seen the USA recently? We are getting more snobbish slobbish and stupid by the second.
Similar threads
