Top 50 clay courters all time (men)

granddog29

granddog29

Banned
Who would be your top 50 clay courters of all time for the men. These would be my top 30, I would need more time to consider a more extensive list:

0. Nadal
1. Nadal (Nadal is so far in another stratosphere from all others he should be given the first 2 places)
2. Borg
3. Rosewall
4. Lendl
5. Wilding
6. Cochet
7. Kuerten
8. Wilander
9. LaCoste
10. Laver
11. Borotra
12. Drobny
13. Pietrangeli
14. Courier
15. Vilas
16. Muster
17. Bruguera
18. Santana
19. Von Cramm
20. Gimeno
21. Nusslein
22. Kodes
23. Orantes
24. Nastase
25. Federer
26. Trabert
27. Panatta
28. Ferrero
29. Djokovic
30. Kozeluh
31. Agassi
32. Hoad
33. Parker
34. Roche
35. Connors
36. Crawford
37. Segura
38. Perry
39. Davidson
40. Decugis
41. Emerson
42. Patty
43. Tilden
44. Moya
45.Gomez
46. Rios
47. Corretja
48. Decugis
49. Coria
50. Chang
 
Last edited:
Open Era only, I'd say:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Muster
7. Vilas
8. Courier
9. Bruguera
10. Federer
 
Phoenix1983 said:
Open Era only, I'd say:

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

Those are pretty good. I thought of including Ferrero as IMO his peak level on play is way above someone like Vilas or Federer, but it doesnt matter enough when he could only sustain it a couple years due to health problems.
 
kiki said:
weak era: Nadal
tough era:Borg
Click to expand...

In terms of clay tennis neither were in a tough era. Each faced one barely top 20 clay courter all time (Federer for Nadal, Vilas for Borg). Nadal faced one other who could become a top 20 clay courter of all time but isnt yet (Djokovic). Other than that neither faced hardly anyone who would even probably be a top 50 clay courter of all time. Both super weak clay eras, but Nadal dominated and won far more in his weak clay era than Borg could in his.
 
Another thread

granddog29 said:
Who would be your top 50 clay courters of all time for the men. These would be my top 20, I would need more time to consider a more extensive list:

0. Nadal
1. Nadal (Nadal is so far in another stratosphere from all others he should be given the first 2 places)
2. Borg
3. Rosewall
4. Kuerten
5. Lendl
6. Wilding
7. Cochet
8. Wilander
9. LaCoste
10. Laver
11. Borotra
12. Drobny
13. Santana
14. Courier
15. Muster
16. Pietrangeli
17. Bruguera
18. Vilas
19. Von Cramm
20. Federer
Click to expand...

Worth you checking out the following thread. It has been running for nearly 5 years now on this topic:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=261831

By the way, good to see you have Wilding in the top 10 - he really deserves it :)
 
hoodjem said:
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Rosewall
4. Wilding
5. Cochet
6. Lendl
7. Wilander
8. Lacoste
9. Kuerten
10. Laver
11. Borotra
12. Drobny
13. Vilas
14. Bruguera
15. Pietrangeli
16. Courier
17. Muster
18. Gimeno
19. Federer
20. Kodes
21. von Cramm
22. Santana
23. Nusslein
25. Nastase
26. Trabert
27. Orantes
28. Panatta
29. Kozeluh
30. Agassi
31. Connors
32. Tilden
33. Frank Parker
34. Roche
35. Sven Davidson
36. Jack Crawford
37. Segura
38. Fred Perry
39. J.E. Patty
40. Decugis
41. Emerson
Click to expand...
The latest from http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=261831&page=69
 
granddog29 said:
Who would be your top 50 clay courters of all time for the men. These would be my top 20, I would need more time to consider a more extensive list:

0. Nadal
1. Nadal (Nadal is so far in another stratosphere from all others he should be given the first 2 places)
2. Borg
3. Rosewall
4. Kuerten
5. Lendl
6. Wilding
7. Cochet
8. Wilander
9. LaCoste
10. Laver
11. Borotra
12. Drobny
13. Santana
14. Courier
15. Muster
16. Pietrangeli
17. Bruguera
18. Vilas
19. Von Cramm
20. Federer
Click to expand...

Laver was almost as strong as Rosewall. Vilas was much stronger than Borotra. Nüsslein was stronger than Drobny.
 
Last edited:
Kuerten was a great to watch on clay, but I don't think he belongs ahead of either Lendl or Wilander on the surface, both of whom were better day in day out on the surface.

Guga's peak level on clay probably stands out more than Lendl's for instance, because he was so much better on clay than on other surfaces, while Lendl was a lot more versatile so his level on carpet, hard and clay was more similar.

Courier is one of the most difficult players to rank in lists like this as he played a lot less on clay than the European and South American players, often routinely skipping Monte-Carlo and Hamburg and only playing at Rome which was the final big clay court event before RG in the 90s (it switched slots with Hamburg in the ATP calendar in 2000). He wasn't interested in racking up smaller clay court titles, but still has excellent records at RG and Rome.
 
Last edited:
I probably overranked Kuerten but here was my line of thinking:

1. At his best I dont believe anyone besides possibly Nadal and Borg played clay court tennis at a higher level than Kuerten. His peak level play was simply amazing. Winners off the ground off both wings at an astonishing rate if he were serving on grass rather than hitting off the ground on slow red clay, ability to hit any shot, easy and great defense which he didnt produce to near the same level on any surface, and a serve that was a rare weapon on clay for a clay court specialist.

Also that he almost certainly would have 4, 5, or even 6 French Open titles had his career not been derailed by a bum hip. 2002-2005 would have all been reasonable chances for him, especialy 2002 and 2004. Even if one isnt so sure on that he still achieved the same # of French Open titles as Lendl and Wilander and many Masters titles and other achievements, forced into essentialy a much shorter career (if we discount his grandpa hipped years).

Wilander to me just wasnt that imposing. It is hard to dispute his achievements on clay but I never felt he had a hope vs Lendl, Borg (had he continued), and others at their best. Also while he has the French Open record isnt he behind other 3 time French Open winners in other stats like Masters titles, overall record outside the French, etc...
 
1) Kuerten
2) Borg
3) Djokovic
4) Lendl
5) Ferrero
6) Courier
7) Coria
8 ) Wilander
9) Nadal
10) Muster
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^^kuerten was injured though..:confused:and he didn't play or was below par.

so deal with reality as it is and stop inventing up fake realities in your head. :confused:
 
I agree that Vilas is above Muster. I do think he was a more a talented player with a better overall forehand-backhand package, dropshots, slice etc.

Now moving onto the stats, in terms of sheer quantity of clay court titles he has Muster beaten. Plus his RG record is far better, also losing in 3 finals (2 to Borg and 1 to Wilander), while aside from 1995 Muster never reached another RG final and only reached 1 other semi where he was thumped by Gomez. Too often he would get beaten by serve-volleyers or attackers on clay.

I don't agree that he is better than Kuerten though. I would take a peak a Kuerten over a peak Vilas. Plus Kuerten beat the likes of Muster, Bruguera, Medvedev, Corretja, Ferrero, Kafelnikov and Norman to win his RG titles, and outclassed the world no. 1 and two time Hamburg champion Federer in 2004. In 1977 Vilas did beat Fibak and Ramirez en-route to his title, but then faced Brian Gottfried in the final who wasn't a particularly imposing clay court opponent. He was owned by the notorious US moonballer Harold Solomon at RG.
 
Peak Guga on clay was excellent, but so was peak Lendl when he destroyed Wilander in his 1984 RG semi-final (the most one sided of their 4 RG matches), straight setted Vilas twice in Buenos Aires, double bagelled Connors at Forest Hills etc.

It was actually amazing how versatile Lendl's clay court game could be and how much it varied. He could be very aggressive and attacking and even serve-volley a lot on the surface or be very defensive and patient and look to construct points slowly or moonball with the best of them. So was Wilander who was a strategic mastermind and could vary his tactics depending on the opponent and circumstances (as Lendl found out in the 1985 RG final).

Lendl and Wilander had another all-time great clay court player, i.e. each other, as primary clay court opposition, which Kuerten didn't have.

After Nadal and Borg, Lendl also had the most dominant stretch at RG in the open era, from 1984-1987 when he won 3titles and also reached the 1985 final. He had winning h2hs over Wilander and Vilas on clay, and even past his best in 1992, he comprehensively straight setted both Muster and Bruguera on the surface.
 
Last edited:
Gimeno higher ranked than Santana and Orantes
NO WAY
Gimeno and Orantes both won a major on cc
But in the other big cc events Gimeno is far below
Orantes won the second best, Rome which Andres never did
Orantes lost a final at RG but Andres never made a second final
Orantes beat Vilas,Nastase and Connors all prime while Andres beat Metrevali and Proisy who were good but not top players
Barcelona: 3-1 for Orantes
Hamburg: 2-1 for Manolo
Boston/Toronto: Orantes won it and Gimeno not
Indi: Orantes won it twice to Andres none
In his 1977 final, Manuel trashed Connors, again
While Gimeno won some pros tourneys...how many and how important were so to compare with Orantes record at the Open Era?
Now Santana was the best cc of the amateur ranks in 60
Not only he won Two RG beating another two timer, Pietrangeli in 1961 and 1964
He also won at Rome and defeated easily Laver at both 61 RG
and Barcelona 1970
The Barcelona match was during open era when Laver was clearly the very best player of the planet and it was to be Santana' s last big title
He was unbelievable, I vividly recall it
It is very tough to rank these three all timers because played in different fields and under very different curcumstances
In spite of Santana great amateur record, includung DC play and Gimeno great record at the 1960 pros, I have very few doubts that Orantes was the best player of the 3
The guy beat Ken Rosewall when Rosewall was probably n1 and he was barely 21 yrs old
He beat Borg,Ashe,Smith,Vilas,Nastase,Connors,Panatta,Roche on grass,Mc Enroe,Gerulaitis
 
After Nadal, I would rank Orantes as the second most talented Spanish player that I've seen, ahead of the likes of Bruguera, Ferrero etc. Definitely the best player of the open era never to win the RG title in my opinion, both in terms of the talent of his game and stats/achievements (even ignoring his green clay feats, on red clay he won numerous big titles at Monte-Carlo, Rome, Hamburg and Barcelona).

Going to back to the Lendl-Wilander-Kuerten comparison, their 'official' win-loss records on clay are as follows:
Lendl – 329-75 (81.44%)
Wilander 264-80 (76.74%)
Kuerten 181-78 (69.88%)

So Lendl played 145 more official matches on clay than Guga, but still suffered 3 less defeats. In fact he also played 60 more official matches on clay than Wilander, and suffered 5 less defeats. This shows that day in day out on clay, Lendl was far more reliable and far less vulnerable to surprise defeats than Kuerten and even Wilander.
 
granddog29 said:
Who would be your top 50 clay courters of all time for the men. These would be my top 20, I would need more time to consider a more extensive list:

0. Nadal
1. Nadal (Nadal is so far in another stratosphere from all others he should be given the first 2 places)
2. Borg
3. Rosewall
4. Kuerten
5. Lendl
6. Wilding
7. Cochet
8. Wilander
9. LaCoste
10. Laver
11. Borotra
12. Drobny
13. Santana
14. Courier
15. Muster
16. Pietrangeli
17. Bruguera
18. Vilas
19. Von Cramm
20. Federer
Click to expand...

granddog29, I severely miss Gimeno and Segura who I rank among the top ten.
 
kiki said:
Gimeno higher ranked than Santana and Orantes
NO WAY
Gimeno and Orantes both won a major on cc
But in the other big cc events Gimeno is far below
Orantes won the second best, Rome which Andres never did
Orantes lost a final at RG but Andres never made a second final
Orantes beat Vilas,Nastase and Connors all prime while Andres beat Metrevali and Proisy who were good but not top players
Barcelona: 3-1 for Orantes
Hamburg: 2-1 for Manolo
Boston/Toronto: Orantes won it and Gimeno not
Indi: Orantes won it twice to Andres none
In his 1977 final, Manuel trashed Connors, again
While Gimeno won some pros tourneys...how many and how important were so to compare with Orantes record at the Open Era?
Now Santana was the best cc of the amateur ranks in 60
Not only he won Two RG beating another two timer, Pietrangeli in 1961 and 1964
He also won at Rome and defeated easily Laver at both 61 RG
and Barcelona 1970
The Barcelona match was during open era when Laver was clearly the very best player of the planet and it was to be Santana' s last big title
He was unbelievable, I vividly recall it
It is very tough to rank these three all timers because played in different fields and under very different curcumstances
In spite of Santana great amateur record, includung DC play and Gimeno great record at the 1960 pros, I have very few doubts that Orantes was the best player of the 3
The guy beat Ken Rosewall when Rosewall was probably n1 and he was barely 21 yrs old
He beat Borg,Ashe,Smith,Vilas,Nastase,Connors,Panatta,Roche on grass,Mc Enroe,Gerulaitis
Click to expand...

kiki, You ignore the great pro career of Gimeno. F. i. Andres won the two big claycourt tournaments of 1966, Oklahoma and Barcelona, beating BOTH Laver and Rosewall in their prime. I wonder if Orantes or Santana could have done that...
 
Gizo said:
After Nadal, I would rank Orantes as the second most talented Spanish player that I've seen, ahead of the likes of Bruguera, Ferrero etc. Definitely the best player of the open era never to win the RG title in my opinion, both in terms of the talent of his game and stats/achievements (even ignoring his green clay feats, on red clay he won numerous big titles at Monte-Carlo, Rome, Hamburg and Barcelona).

Going to back to the Lendl-Wilander-Kuerten comparison, their 'official' win-loss records on clay are as follows:
Lendl – 329-75 (81.44%)
Wilander 264-80 (76.74%)
Kuerten 181-78 (69.88%)

So Lendl played 145 more official matches on clay than Guga, but still suffered 3 less defeats. In fact he also played 60 more official matches on clay than Wilander, and suffered 5 less defeats. This shows that day in day out on clay, Lendl was far more reliable and far

less vulnerable to surprise defeats than Kuerten and even Wilander.
Click to expand...

Great shot Gizo
I even forgot Orantes won MC, when it was a rare WCT cc stop
Y
 
Gizo said:
After Nadal, I would rank Orantes as the second most talented Spanish player that I've seen, ahead of the likes of Bruguera, Ferrero etc. Definitely the best player of the open era never to win the RG title in my opinion, both in terms of the talent of his game and stats/achievements (even ignoring his green clay feats, on red clay he won numerous big titles at Monte-Carlo, Rome, Hamburg and Barcelona).

Going to back to the Lendl-Wilander-Kuerten comparison, their 'official' win-loss records on clay are as follows:
Lendl – 329-75 (81.44%)
Wilander 264-80 (76.74%)
Kuerten 181-78 (69.88%)

So Lendl played 145 more official matches on clay than Guga, but still suffered 3 less defeats. In fact he also played 60 more official matches on clay than Wilander, and suffered 5 less defeats. This shows that day in day out on clay, Lendl was far more reliable and far

less vulnerable to surprise defeats than Kuerten and even Wilander.
Click to expand...

Great shot Gizo
I even forgot Orantes won MC, when it was a rare WCT cc stop
You are also spot on Lendl
He was so good on hard and specially indoors we forget how good he was on
Cc
I have watched him live on clay like 40 times and he could be as good as anybody else
 
BobbyOne said:
kiki, You ignore the great pro career of Gimeno. F. i. Andres won the two big claycourt tournaments of 1966, Oklahoma and Barcelona, beating BOTH Laver and Rosewall in their prime. I wonder if Orantes or Santana could have done that...
Click to expand...

How many times have you seen these three players?
 
BobbyOne said:
kiki, I only saw Orantes.

I have not seen Tilden but I do know he is a GOAT candidate. The same with Gonzalez...

Results speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

That is what I pointed out.Gimeno results are inferior to Santana and Orantes but he was one o the world´s best players of his time and got a well deserved win at the 1972 French Championships, aged 36.

There has always been a lot of controversial in Spain, as far as I knwo, about who of the three was the best player.Of course, that was a lot of time ago.

Many people would have liked to see a DC final in 1970 against Australia, on clay and on spanish soil with a spanish team made up by Gimeno,Santana,Orantes and Gisbert ( a doubs specialist, who played the 68 AO final and also scored wins over the likes of Borg,Nastase and Connors).This team would have been the best ever for Spain.I think, better than the great teams Spain has had over the last 15 yrs.
 
kiki said:
That is what I pointed out.Gimeno results are inferior to Santana and Orantes but he was one o the world´s best players of his time and got a well deserved win at the 1972 French Championships, aged 36.

There has always been a lot of controversial in Spain, as far as I knwo, about who of the three was the best player.Of course, that was a lot of time ago.

Many people would have liked to see a DC final in 1970 against Australia, on clay and on spanish soil with a spanish team made up by Gimeno,Santana,Orantes and Gisbert ( a doubs specialist, who played the 68 AO final and also scored wins over the likes of Borg,Nastase and Connors).This team would have been the best ever for Spain.I think, better than the great teams Spain has had over the last 15 yrs.
Click to expand...

If young fans do not believe it, llok at that:

Gimeno: 1972 FO winner, won the Pro´s world championships at Oklahoma and Barcelona in 1966 or 1967.Also, 1969 AO finalist and 1970 Wimbledon semifinalist.

Santana: 4 slams as an amateur ( one of them Wimbledon), winner of the IO, Spanish Open, SAF open and the second best amateur behind Roy Emerson.Santana beat peak Emmo at the DC final of 65 AT SIDNEY and then beat world´s number one John Newcombe, at the DC final of 67 held at MELBOURNE.Lost a FO final to Emerson in 1963

Orantes: Rome,Indianapolis,Masters,Barcelona,Montecarlo,Boston,Toronto,Hamburg and US Open champion ( among many others).Semifinalist at Wimbledon and Roland Garros and finalist also at Roland Garros.Won also the Doubles Masters with Juan Gisbert.

Gisbert:

A lawyer that incidentally turned into an amateur and then pro tennis player and got ranked among the the top 30.Won the Spanish Open as an amateur, reached the last amateur Australian Open ( lost surprisingly to the almost unknowm local boy Bill Bowrey) and scored wins over many of the best players of the world, including Borg,Connors and Nastase.He and Orantes won the 1975 Doubles Masters title.

Can´t get any better on a clay court in the early 70´s.even on grass, they would have been extremely tough to beat as the records of those 4 show.

When he was the best junior of the world, aged 18, Orantes was choosen as the second singles player to go along Santana against the Australian team of: Roy Emerson, John Newcombe and Tony Roche.Well, in his first match he played the best amateur of the last 5 years, Roy Emerson.Emerson started winning easily, but then Orantes took the third set and lead 4-1 in the fourth.He was 18.That is how good he was.
 
kiki said:
That is what I pointed out.Gimeno results are inferior to Santana and Orantes but he was one o the world´s best players of his time and got a well deserved win at the 1972 French Championships, aged 36.

There has always been a lot of controversial in Spain, as far as I knwo, about who of the three was the best player.Of course, that was a lot of time ago.

Many people would have liked to see a DC final in 1970 against Australia, on clay and on spanish soil with a spanish team made up by Gimeno,Santana,Orantes and Gisbert ( a doubs specialist, who played the 68 AO final and also scored wins over the likes of Borg,Nastase and Connors).This team would have been the best ever for Spain.I think, better than the great teams Spain has had over the last 15 yrs.
Click to expand...

kiki, I would not say that Gimeno's results are inferior if we go through Joe's book and pro record. Gimeno beat Rosewall at least 35 times (all surfaces), often on clay. I doubt that a Santana could have done so.

Gimeno's French Open win (at 34) might give an impression how good he was in his prime.
 
kiki said:
If young fans do not believe it, llok at that:

Gimeno: 1972 FO winner, won the Pro´s world championships at Oklahoma and Barcelona in 1966 or 1967.Also, 1969 AO finalist and 1970 Wimbledon semifinalist.

Santana: 4 slams as an amateur ( one of them Wimbledon), winner of the IO, Spanish Open, SAF open and the second best amateur behind Roy Emerson.Santana beat peak Emmo at the DC final of 65 AT SIDNEY and then beat world´s number one John Newcombe, at the DC final of 67 held at MELBOURNE.Lost a FO final to Emerson in 1963

Orantes: Rome,Indianapolis,Masters,Barcelona,Montecarlo,Boston,Toronto,Hamburg and US Open champion ( among many others).Semifinalist at Wimbledon and Roland Garros and finalist also at Roland Garros.Won also the Doubles Masters with Juan Gisbert.

Gisbert:

A lawyer that incidentally turned into an amateur and then pro tennis player and got ranked among the the top 30.Won the Spanish Open as an amateur, reached the last amateur Australian Open ( lost surprisingly to the almost unknowm local boy Bill Bowrey) and scored wins over many of the best players of the world, including Borg,Connors and Nastase.He and Orantes won the 1975 Doubles Masters title.

Can´t get any better on a clay court in the early 70´s.even on grass, they would have been extremely tough to beat as the records of those 4 show.

When he was the best junior of the world, aged 18, Orantes was choosen as the second singles player to go along Santana against the Australian team of: Roy Emerson, John Newcombe and Tony Roche.Well, in his first match he played the best amateur of the last 5 years, Roy Emerson.Emerson started winning easily, but then Orantes took the third set and lead 4-1 in the fourth.He was 18.That is how good he was.
Click to expand...

kiki, Gimeno's best performance on clay in open era was probably his five set loss to Rosewall in the 1968 French Open SF.
 
granddog29 said:
Wilander to me just wasnt that imposing. It is hard to dispute his achievements on clay but I never felt he had a hope vs Lendl, Borg (had he continued), and others at their best. Also while he has the French Open record isnt he behind other 3 time French Open winners in other stats like Masters titles, overall record outside the French, etc...
Click to expand...

As usual, Wilander is underrated. He didn't have the imposing game like some other players but he was a very smart player who knew how to win. He has the equivalent of eight Masters titles and his overall record outside the French is very very good. Two Grand Slams on a hard court, two grand slams on grass and even a Wimby doubles title. At present time, he has more grand slam titles than Becker, Edberg, Djokovic, Courier, Murray, etc. That's pretty darn good. I'd put him at No. 4 on the all-time clay court players list.
 
Even if you think Wilander is underrated there is no way in hell he is as high as #4 all time on clay. Nadal, Borg, and Rosewall are undisputably way above him. Lendl played in the same era and nobody doubts Lendl is the best clay courter of their era, despite having the same number of French Open finals, so that already makes him #5 at absolute maximum just of players since 1960.
 
granddog29 said:
Even if you think Wilander is underrated there is no way in hell he is as high as #4 all time on clay. Nadal, Borg, and Rosewall are undisputably way above him. Lendl played in the same era and nobody doubts Lendl is the best clay courter of their era, despite having the same number of French Open finals, so that already makes him #5 at absolute maximum just of players since 1960.
Click to expand...

I watched both playing each other on clay
To me the issue depends exclusively on their cc H2H
Who won more and where?
 
BobbyOne said:
kiki, Gimeno's best performance on clay in open era was probably his five set loss to Rosewall in the 1968 French Open SF.
Click to expand...

Yes, that improves Gimeno record
His weakest slam being USO but I think he got to the quarters in 1970 or 71?
Orantes played a bunch of US quarters besides his 75 win
1971 losing to the WINNER S Smith
1976 losing to Borg in 5 gruelling sets
1977 lost to Connors after beating recent W sf John Mc Enroe
He never played it at Flushing
Orantes could be great on old fast grass since he won Wimbledon Juniors, reached the semi in 1972 and beat Tony Roche in 1974 after being down by two sets!!! and that against one of the best grasscourters of the modern times
He also push eventual champion Stan Smith t¿o 4 sets in their 71 quarter at USO
And as I mentioned that incredible yet not finished comeback vs Emmo on AUSTRALIAN GRASS at the 1967 DC final...being just 18
Like him or not, Orantes was an exceptional talent...who experienced seven surgery cases when at his prime
What could he achieved without that case of injuries?
 
kiki said:
I watched both playing each other on clay
To me the issue depends exclusively on their cc H2H
Who won more and where?
Click to expand...

Their official clay court h2h is 6-4 in Lendl's favour. They split their 4 matches at RG and their two RG finals of course:
1 - 1982 Roland Garros R4 - Wilander 4-6 7-5 3-6 6-4 6-2
2 - 1982 Barcelona QF - Wilander 7-6 6-1
3 - 1984 Dusseldorf World Team Cup - Lendl 7-6 7-5
4 - 1984 Roland Garros SF - Lendl 6-3 6-3 7-5
5 - 1984 Davis Cup SF - Wilander 6-3 4-6 6-2
6 - 1985 Monte-Carlo F - Lendl 6-1 6-3 4-6 6-4
7 - 1985 Dusseldorf World Team Cup - Lendl 6-4 6-3
8 - 1985 Roland Garros F -Wilander 3-6 6-4 6-2 6-2
9 - 1987 Roland Garros F - Lendl 7-6 6-2 3-6 7-6
10 - 1994 Coral Springs R2 - Lendl 6-3 4-6 7-5

I think that Lendl's performance in 1984 was the best by either player in any of their 4 matches at RG. Obviously Lendl had that win in 1994 on har-tru when both players were way past their best, but one of Wilander's wins came in a completely meaningless dead rubber in the Davis Cup in 1984 (should dead rubbers even count towards official statistics?).

Lendl won 28 clay court titles to Wilander's 20. He won Monte-Carlo twice, Rome twice, Hamburg twice and Barcelona twice, and so was a multiple champion at all 5 of the biggest red clay tournaments. Wilander won Monte-Carlo twice, Rome once, Barcelona 3 times and never won Hamburg. So Lendl has more titles overall, and also a better collection of titles on the surface. Plus he successfully defended his title at RG in 1987, which Mats couldn't do, and defending titles is a big thing in the world of sports. Plus as I posted before his W/L record on clay was better, with 5 less defeats despite playing 60 more matches.

I do think that Lendl's peak level on clay was better than Wilander's as well.
 
Last edited:
Still, I sometimes think Lendl looks back at their rivalry and wonders why he lost so many big matches to Wilander. Wilander beat Lendl in 3 out of 5 Grand Slam Finals. That's gotta gnaw at Lendl a bit.
 
kiki said:
Yes, that improves Gimeno record
His weakest slam being USO but I think he got to the quarters in 1970 or 71?
Orantes played a bunch of US quarters besides his 75 win
1971 losing to the WINNER S Smith
1976 losing to Borg in 5 gruelling sets
1977 lost to Connors after beating recent W sf John Mc Enroe
He never played it at Flushing
Orantes could be great on old fast grass since he won Wimbledon Juniors, reached the semi in 1972 and beat Tony Roche in 1974 after being down by two sets!!! and that against one of the best grasscourters of the modern times
He also push eventual champion Stan Smith t¿o 4 sets in their 71 quarter at USO
And as I mentioned that incredible yet not finished comeback vs Emmo on AUSTRALIAN GRASS at the 1967 DC final...being just 18
Like him or not, Orantes was an exceptional talent...who experienced seven surgery cases when at his prime
What could he achieved without that case of injuries?
Click to expand...

kiki, Gimeno reached fourth round of the 1972 US Open losing to Smith in five sets. The same year he defeated Smith in Davis Cup on clay.
 
monfed said:
1) Kuerten
2) Borg
3) Djokovic
4) Lendl
5) Ferrero
6) Courier
7) Coria
8 ) Wilander
9) Nadal
10) Muster
Click to expand...

Cool. Your list reminds me of my greatest on grass list.

1. Sampras
2. Laver
3. Borg
4. Mcenroe
5. Becker
6. Edberg
7. Krajicek
8. Djokovic
9. Cash
10. Federer
 
Last edited:
Kirijax said:
Still, I sometimes think Lendl looks back at their rivalry and wonders why he lost so many big matches to Wilander. Wilander beat Lendl in 3 out of 5 Grand Slam Finals. That's gotta gnaw at Lendl a bit.
Click to expand...

To be honest after retirement I'd bet that most tennis players don't care about their career statistics a great deal, and certainly nowhere near as much as us fans who post on forums like this and slice and dice their results do. So I doubt Lendl particularly cares about his h2hs with this player and that.

Still it's true that Wilander did get the better of him a lot in big matches. Lendl was the clear favourite at the 1985 RG final, but Wilander outfoxed him with a change of tactics and hitting good approach shots and attacking the net when he could to keep him under pressure. And at the the 1988 US Open Mats knew that he couldn't stay back and slug it out from the baseline with Lendl and came to the net a lot.

Lendl did destroy Mats in 1987 Masters final though, with one of the most flawless performances of his career. I would place the Masters roughly on a par with the Australian Open from 1983-1987 (when it had improved significantly from its 1976-1982 dark days but still lagged behind the other 3 majors) in terms of importance. Lendl didn't really care that much about his 1983 AO final defeat and said he didn't know if he'd be back there the next year in his post-match speech.
 
Incognito said:
Cool. Your list reminds me of my greatest on grass list.

1. Sampras
2. Laver
3. Borg
4. Mcenroe
5. Becker
6. Edberg
7. Krajicek
8. Djokovic
9. Cash
10. Federer
Click to expand...

Federer is 10th? Behind Djokovic, Cash and Krajicek? lol.

Your list is a joke...
 
Incognito said:
Cool. Your list reminds me of my greatest on grass list.

1. Sampras
2. Laver
3. Borg
4. Mcenroe
5. Becker
6. Edberg
7. Krajicek
8. Djokovic
9. Cash
10. Federer
Click to expand...
tumblr_m7us2z0OlP1r60v6do1_500.gif
 
Does anyone here really think that Federer wouldn't get the better of Jim Courier or Thomas Muster over say 20 matches on clay?
 
President said:
Does anyone here really think that Federer wouldn't get the better of Jim Courier or Thomas Muster over say 20 matches on clay?
Click to expand...

I think he probably would yes, peak level wise he's been able to hang with Nadal at times and produce some very competative matches. For the open era I'd probably only place him definately behind;

1) Nadal
2) Borg
3) Lendl
4) Wilander
5) Kuerten

granddog29 said:
Still better than Monfed's top 10 clay court list.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 1-6 were good. Although there's no Federer in there which is a glaring omission. Also I find it odd how posters include Laver as if by obligation and ignore his contempories. Players like Rosewall and Pancho just from the 50's and 60's were also great grass courters. Even if they arguably weren't as great as Laver if he's #2 they should atleast warrant a mention in the top 10.

However seeing that he was replying to monfed I now believe he was just being ironic...
 
President said:
Does anyone here really think that Federer wouldn't get the better of Jim Courier or Thomas Muster over say 20 matches on clay?
Click to expand...

On clay Muster was like a poor mans Nadal so based on that alone he would usually beat Federer on clay. Just in a slightly less destructive manner.

Courier at his peak from 1991-1993 would regularly beat Federer on clay but he didnt mantain that level for as long so he clay H2H would be close.
 
BobbyOne said:
kiki, Gimeno's best performance on clay in open era was probably his five set loss to Rosewall in the 1968 French Open SF.
Click to expand...

His best performance was a loss? Strange.

Santana seemed to be a tougher fighter than Gimeno, giving Laver a tough one at Wimbledon in 1962, and, most memorably, winning the 1961 Roland Garros with close, comeback five-set wins over Laver, Emerson, and Pietrangeli in the last three rounds.

Gimeno seemed to fold when challenged, but could win on clay when it wasn't at RG.
His 1972 RG win came with only two realistic challenges, from Smith (who lost in three sets, clay not being his thing), and from Metreveli in five sets (a good, but not great player).

It is important to look at the strength of the field, and not simply list titles.
 
granddog29 said:
On clay Muster was like a poor mans Nadal so based on that alone he would usually beat Federer on clay. Just in a slightly less destructive manner.

Courier at his peak from 1991-1993 would regularly beat Federer on clay but he didnt mantain that level for as long so he clay H2H would be close.
Click to expand...

Muster's movement and shotmaking was nothing compared to Nadal's, it takes more than heavy lefty spin to beat Nadal. and Courier, a right-hander with a subpar backhand is weaker on clay than Federer from both the forehand, backhand, serve, and natural movement on the clay. Federer would smoke both of these overrated 90's claycourters.
 
President said:
Muster's movement and shotmaking was nothing compared to Nadal's, it takes more than heavy lefty spin to beat Nadal. and Courier, a right-hander with a subpar backhand is weaker on clay than Federer from both the forehand, backhand, serve, and natural movement on the clay. Federer would smoke both of these overrated 90's claycourters.
Click to expand...

Moya far past his prime was taking sets off peak Federer on clay. Moya is a much weaker "90s clay courter" than either Muster or Courier at their best.
 
granddog29 said:
Moya far past his prime was taking sets off peak Federer on clay. Moya is a much weaker "90s clay courter" than either Muster or Courier at their best.
Click to expand...

He took one set off of him in 2007, and in their only other match was absolutely brutalized in R4 of the French Open in 2005. He gave Federer absolutely no trouble...do you want me to pull up Muster or Courier's terrible losses on clay?
 
Incognito said:
Yeah, but you not saying anything to your fellow ******* Monfool, ranking Coria and Djokovic ahead of Nadal on clay is seriously ******
Click to expand...

It goes without saying that Monfed is an extremely biased troll. You want me to spend my life calling him out? I mean he rates Djokovic over Nadal despite the h2h and the gulf in titles.

I replied to you because I was quite frankly a little bit shocked that you put Federer so low, then I realized it was you responding to Monfed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hoodjem
Second-20 Greatest Male Singles Players
Replies
12
Views
2K
hoodjem
hoodjem
kiki
The 4 toughest eras in men´s tennis
Replies
15
Views
2K
KG1965
K
B
The all-time 100 greatest players
2
Replies
85
Views
6K
pc1
pc1
kiki
great open era shotmakers
Replies
3
Views
733
mhkeuns
mhkeuns
I
Top 3 players per year from 1877 to 2020 (with a regular update)
5 6 7
Replies
328
Views
22K
thrust
T
Back
Top