Weak clay field? No way

[objectivity]

there are some on this forum who claimed that Nadal has achieved so much on clay because the field is weak.

that is a load of bollocks. and its easy to objectively show why. IF the field is indeed weak, we should see American players record much more success than they are. why? because american players are historically the weakest on clay, as they do not grow up and train on clay. When in fact, American players have done terribly during the claycourt season especially over the last decade.

This is in stark contrast to the late 80s and early 90s when American players were still able to compete on clay. Despite growing up on hard courts as well -- read all the biographies of Pete, Agassi, Courier, Chang etc. They all grew up training on hard courts, no different to the modern American player. Yet they were able to have relative success on clay. Perhaps it might be due to different talent levels, but I think a case can be made that its because the clay field now is just that much stronger. There are just so many more top European players now, who all grow up on clay. That I think really explains why American players are doing so poorly on clay.

In summary, the facts point to Nadal having triumphed in a STRONGER clay field, rather than a weaker one over the last decade.

 

[Anaconda]

Nadal is the best clay courter ever. Regardless if an era is weak, winning as much as he has done on clay is pretty hard to deny; No one else would have done what he has done. As good as Kuerten was (I rank him 3rd all time on clay in terms of peak), he wouldn't have won 8 FO's - he at times was a little erratic and had his physical problems.






However, it is quite hard to deny that this era and the past had suspect clay courters. You have Nadal. Big gap. Federer - slight gap - then you had other dangerous floaters like Davydenko, Nalbandian, Robredo and Almagro were ok but not really knocking the doors down. Obviously from 07 onwards we've seen Djokovic but none of these players have a FO title between them although I suspect Djokovic will win one eventually. In the 90's you had proven champions who don't match Nadal, but completely overpower Nadal's competition. I think people remember players like Muster, Bruguera, Moya, Kuerten, Agassi etc

 

[Bukmeikara]

Anaconda

Coria , Ferrer and Ferrero .... Soderling

 

[jelle v]

The Americans are doing poorly on clay, because they are experiencing a talentless generation in tennis..

And although I am of the opinion that I think that clay court play is at an all time low, I do think that Nadal would still have 6 - 8 French Opens. I don't understand why it is so hard to admit that there are very few clay court specialists these days like in the 90's.. Everybody just has a more allround game these days.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Nadal is the best clay courter ever. Regardless if an era is weak, winning as much as he has done on clay is pretty hard to deny; No one else would have done what he has done. As good as Kuerten was (I rank him 3rd all time on clay in terms of peak), he wouldn't have won 8 FO's - he at times was a little erratic and had his physical problems.






However, it is quite hard to deny that this era and the past had suspect clay courters. You have Nadal. Big gap. Federer - slight gap - then you had other dangerous floaters like Davydenko, Nalbandian, Robredo and Almagro were ok but not really knocking the doors down. Obviously from 07 onwards we've seen Djokovic but none of these players have a FO title between them although I suspect Djokovic will win one eventually. In the 90's you had proven champions who don't match Nadal, but completely overpower Nadal's competition. I think people remember players like Muster, Bruguera, Moya, Kuerten, Agassi etc

Nadal is clearly the clay goat.....let's look through history...who could have beaten Rafa??

Kuertin.....no chance with a one handed backhand

Wilander....this one is close....but I think Rafa would have taken him down....Rafa is as fast as wilander bitnwithba windshield wiper forehand that would blow Wilander out of the water.

Borg.....no way.....a wood racquet and gut strings?? Plus Borg lost the FO twice to a serve and volleyer.

Muster.....again, no chance against a windshield wiper forehand

Lendl.....he is sort of like Joker.....borg took Lendl out with a wood racquet while lendl had a graphite......no way abort beats Lendl

Vilas.....again wood versus graphit , poly and a windshield wiper forehand.

Gaudio....give me a break

Coria....Nadal beat him

So I ask you ....who in history would beat Rafa??

 

[Anaconda]

Anaconda

Coria , Ferrer and Ferrero .... Soderling

Coria?


That guy quit tennis. He had one bad loss and he decided to win. Not mentally tough enough to ever win a French Open title. Technically gifted enough but he didn't have slam winning mental abilities.



Ferrer? Please!



Ferrero had his injury problems and wasn't part of Nadal's group. He could have challenged Nadal no doubts.







Soderling was very lucky that conditions in those years were perfect for him. Many players said that year that the FO was as fast, if not faster than Wimbledon. He wasn't really a clay contender, he was a contender for one title (FO) for two years on clay. Did that guy win a clay title?










The person you perhaps missed out was Gaudio. He lost all motivation once he achieved his dream of winning the FO, he could have been a problematic matchup for Nadal; He does have a winning h2h over Nadal on clay and did beat him in 2005 so who knows?








However, if you are suggesting these players come close to the likes of Moya, Agassi, Kuerten, Bruguera, Costa, Muster etc then I have to respectfully disagree.

 

[Anaconda]

Nadal is clearly the clay goat.....let's look through history...who could have beaten Rafa??

Kuertin.....no chance with a one handed backhand

Wilander....this one is close....but I think Rafa would have taken him down....Rafa is as fast as wilander bitnwithba windshield wiper forehand that would blow Wilander out of the water.

Borg.....no way.....a wood racquet and gut strings?? Plus Borg lost the FO twice to a serve and volleyer.

Muster.....again, no chance against a windshield wiper forehand

Lendl.....he is sort of like Joker.....borg took Lendl out with a wood racquet while lendl had a graphite......no way abort beats Lendl

Vilas.....again wood versus graphit , poly and a windshield wiper forehand.

Gaudio....give me a break

Coria....Nadal beat him

So I ask you ....who in history would beat Rafa??

Gaudio actually has a winning clay record. Kuerten's BH would be the sole reason he could get success against Nadal, his 1H BH is the greatest one hander ever. Don't reply, I'll just ignore you.

 

[jelle v]

Nadal is clearly the clay goat.....let's look through history...who could have beaten Rafa??

[...]

So I ask you ....who in history would beat Rafa??

That's not the point here right..? He clearly states that Nadal is the best clay courter ever, so why ask him this question..

Question is if we currently are in a weak clay court era..

 

[Anaconda]

That's not the point here right..? He clearly states that Nadal is the best clay courter ever, so why ask him this question..

Question is if we currently are in a weak clay court era..

His post was factually incorrect and full of ignorance. I can't begin to understand how stupid people can actually be. Did people go to school in this place?

 

[llodra_fan]

there are some on this forum who claimed that Nadal has achieved so much on clay because the field is weak.

that is a load of bollocks. and its easy to objectively show why. IF the field is indeed weak, we should see American players record much more success than they are. why? because american players are historically the weakest on clay, as they do not grow up and train on clay. When in fact, American players have done terribly during the claycourt season especially over the last decade.

This is in stark contrast to the late 80s and early 90s when American players were still able to compete on clay. Despite growing up on hard courts as well -- read all the biographies of Pete, Agassi, Courier, Chang etc. They all grew up training on hard courts, no different to the modern American player. Yet they were able to have relative success on clay. Perhaps it might be due to different talent levels, but I think a case can be made that its because the clay field now is just that much stronger. There are just so many more top European players now, who all grow up on clay. That I think really explains why American players are doing so poorly on clay.

In summary, the facts point to Nadal having triumphed in a STRONGER clay field, rather than a weaker one over the last decade.

While I do believe that Rafael Nadal is the Greatest clay court player of all time, you should stop faking being "objective". Even a neutral fan like me can detect your mask. Anyone can do a search for threads started by you and can see the proof.

 

[monfed]

Yes truly great claycourters like Ferrer,Almagro, Dasco have given Ralph such tough battles. Ralph's biggest competition is Fed whose worst surface is clay. :lol:

Weakest clay field EVER.

 

[90's Clay]

The strength of field has only been on one surface for the past 10 years. Outdoor Hardcourt.

The clay field hasn't been great since the early 2000's. Grass has been TERRIBLE since the 90s. Indoors hasn't been good since the 90s.

 

[Xemi666]

It's just idiots using circular reasoning "Nadal hasn't beat other clay champions, hence the competition is bad", but how can there be other clay champions if Nadal is winning everything? The number of titles is limited, so, if an incredibly dominant guy wins everything (like Nadal) obviously it'll make the rest look bad in comparison.

 

[jelle v]

It's just idiots using circular reasoning "Nadal hasn't beat other clay champions, hence the competition is bad", but how can there be other clay champions if Nadal is winning everything? The number of titles is limited, so, if an incredibly dominant guy wins everything (like Nadal) obviously it'll make the rest look bad in comparison.

No one in this thread is saying that.. What are you talking about..?

 

[Deleted member 21996]

So let me see : american players performance is the gauge for of tge competition in  every surface according to dumbo and the gonads

Yes.... that settles it.. 

 

[Xemi666]

No one in this thread is saying that.. What are you talking about..?

Of course they are. They are saying Ferrer, Federer, Djokovic, Almagro... are worse than past clay fields without giving any reasoning whatsoever.

These threads are created cyclically, by the usual suspects with a clear agenda. Their arguments using the logic I have mentioned.

What are you talking about? Do you have something to actually prove this a weak clay era? Let's hear it, then.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Nadal is clearly the clay goat.....let's look through history...who could have beaten Rafa??

Kuertin.....no chance with a one handed backhand

Wilander....this one is close....but I think Rafa would have taken him down....Rafa is as fast as wilander bitnwithba windshield wiper forehand that would blow Wilander out of the water.

Borg.....no way.....a wood racquet and gut strings?? Plus Borg lost the FO twice to a serve and volleyer.

Muster.....again, no chance against a windshield wiper forehand

Lendl.....he is sort of like Joker.....borg took Lendl out with a wood racquet while lendl had a graphite......no way abort beats Lendl

Vilas.....again wood versus graphit , poly and a windshield wiper forehand.

Gaudio....give me a break

Coria....Nadal beat him

So I ask you ....who in history would beat Rafa??

You know so much about tennis. ...

 

[objectivity]

While I do believe that Rafael Nadal is the Greatest clay court player of all time, you should stop faking being "objective". Even a neutral fan like me can detect your mask. Anyone can do a search for threads started by you and can see the proof.

i can be a fan of nadal while being objective. those concepts can perfectly co-exist. what is your point?

 

[RF20Lennon]

Nadal is clearly the clay goat.....let's look through history...who could have beaten Rafa??

Kuertin.....no chance with a one handed backhand

Wilander....this one is close....but I think Rafa would have taken him down....Rafa is as fast as wilander bitnwithba windshield wiper forehand that would blow Wilander out of the water.

Borg.....no way.....a wood racquet and gut strings?? Plus Borg lost the FO twice to a serve and volleyer.

Muster.....again, no chance against a windshield wiper forehand

Lendl.....he is sort of like Joker.....borg took Lendl out with a wood racquet while lendl had a graphite......no way abort beats Lendl

Vilas.....again wood versus graphit , poly and a windshield wiper forehand.

Gaudio....give me a break

Coria....Nadal beat him

So I ask you ....who in history would beat Rafa??

If they played with wood rackets. Borg would handily beat Rafa but otherwise Nadal would beat each and every one of these players. Weak era or not doesn't matter. Nadal would've won as much in any era with graphite rackets and poly strings.

 

[90's Clay]

Of course they are. They are saying Ferrer, Federer, Djokovic, Almagro... are worse than past clay fields without giving any reasoning whatsoever.

These threads are created cyclically, by the usual suspects with a clear agenda. Their arguments using the logic I have mentioned.

What are you talking about? Do you have something to actually prove this a weak clay era? Let's hear it, then.

Surely you can't believe Ferrer, Djokovic, Federer, Almagro are better than Borg, Lendl, Wilander or Bruguera, Courier, Kafelnikov, and Guga etc. do you?


Federer couldn't even hang with Plastic Hip Guga wayy past his prime at the French

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

It's just idiots using circular reasoning "Nadal hasn't beat other clay champions, hence the competition is bad", but how can there be other clay champions if Nadal is winning everything? The number of titles is limited, so, if an incredibly dominant guy wins everything (like Nadal) obviously it'll make the rest look bad in comparison.

Thank you for this! This is the exact argument Fed fans use when people say he won his slams in a weak era!

I think there is no such thing as a weak era, but it stands to reason that if Fed's era was weak, so was Rafa's!

 

[Xemi666]

Surely you can't believe Ferrer, Djokovic, Federer, Almagro are better than Borg, Lendl, Wilander or Bruguera, Courier, Kafelnikov, and Guga etc. do you?


Federer couldn't even hang with Plastic Hip Guga wayy past his prime at the French

I was unaware that those guys all played at the same time

Do you want me to bring up loses for Guga too? Like against Safin? We can play that game all day.

 

[90's Clay]

I was unaware that those guys all played at the same time

Do you want me to bring up loses for Guga too? Like against Safin? We can play that game all day.

Sure lets bring em up. Guga has 3 French Open titles, and historically considered one of the greatest players on clay at his best, and whipped on close to PEAK Federer at the French have having surgery.

What the hell has Ferrer or Almagro ever done? ROFLMAO They are two CHUMPS. Possession a tenth of the talent someone like Kuerten, Lendl, Wilander etc. had


And for the people saying, Weak eras and strong eras don't exist thats hogwash. I guess american men's players are just as good today as they were 20 years ago then?

Bottom line is, certain eras produce more talent than others. ITs the way its always been the way it always be.


Just as the 2000's didn't nearly product the top talent that this era has produced, it produced more depth, but no one would seriously believe (who's followed the game) that Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko are anywheres NEAR close to as good as the MUrray/Nole/Nadal trio of the past few years

 

[Xemi666]

Thank you for this! This is the exact argument Fed fans use when people say he won his slams in a weak era!

I think there is no such thing as a weak era, but it stands to reason that if Fed's era was weak, so was Rafa's!

Yeah, I agree,arguments about Fed winning in a weak era are equally stupid. Those people should read about Occam's Razor.

 

[Xemi666]

Sure lets bring em up. Guga has 3 French Open titles, and historically considered one of the greatest players on clay at his best, and whipped on close to PEAK Federer at the French have having surgery.

What the hell has Ferrer or Almagro ever done? ROFLMAO

Well then, so how great a player is only measured by his accomplishments, correct? Then, Nadal is undisputedly better than everyone else since he has 8 (that's more than twice what Guga has BTW) RG titles. Thus he would have trounced Guga and saying he wins because of a weak era is BS.

90's (or any other era's) clay courter's troubling Nadal? ROFLMAO

 

[90's Clay]

Well then, so how great a player is only measured by his accomplishments, correct? Then, Nadal is undisputedly better than everyone else since he has 8 (that's more than twice than Guga has BTW) RG titles. Thus he would have trounced Guga and saying he wins because of a weak era is BS.

90's (or any other era's) clay courter's troubling Nadal? ROFLMAO

Nadal is clay GOAT (which is mainly based on accomplishments not playing field) but this is also a weak clay field. Forget accomplishments, look at level. Outside of maybe Nole, who has achieved a level of Peak Courier, Bruguera, Lendl, Wilander, Muster etc. on clay?

We already saw, Federer MANHANDLED by Kuerten at the French. Need more proof?


Nadal playing with 90s racket technology is also another thing to consider, down goes all the topspin he can generate with racket technology, so the top clay court players in the 90s could see a lot of success against Nadal with the ability to his those RPMS on his shot

 

[TMF]

Thank you for this! This is the exact argument Fed fans use when people say he won his slams in a weak era!

I think there is no such thing as a weak era, but it stands to reason that if Fed's era was weak, so was Rafa's!

This is what I'm have been saying all along. Weak competition theory was all started by the Sampras fans in the mid-2000 and Federer fans retaliate. And then Nadal fans came along and copy that the same theory, which basically contradict themselves because both Fed/Nadal are competing against the same field.

 

[Xemi666]

Nadal is clay GOAT (which is mainly based on accomplishments not playing field) but this is also a weak clay field. Forget accomplishments, look at level. Outside of maybe Nole, who has achieved a level of Peak Courier, Bruguera, Lendl, Wilander, Muster etc. on clay?

We already saw, Federer MANHANDLED by Kuerten at the French. Need more proof?

We've also seen your so beloved Kuerten manhandled by Safin and past his prime Medvedev at the French. I guess he was nothing to write home about then, right? We can bring up particular losses and act like they mean something to an entire career all day. The difference is, I know doing that is stupid, while apparently you don't.

Nadal playing with 90s racket technology is also another thing to consider, down goes all the topspin he can generate with racket technology, so the top clay court players in the 90s could see a lot of success against Nadal with the ability to his those RPMS on his shot

Tsk, tsk. No backtracking. Nadal ---> 8 RGs = undisputed Clay GOAT, Federer>Sampras, and so on and so forth, as you have so graciously informed me about, achievements are above everything else ;-)

 

[90's Clay]

We've also seen your so beloved Kuerten manhandled by Safin and past his prime Medvedev at the French. I guess he was nothing to write home about then, right? We can bring up particular losses and act like they mean something to an entire career all day. The difference is, I know doing that is stupid, while apparently you don't.




Tsk, tsk. No backtracking. Nadal ---> 8 RGs = undisputed Clay GOAT, Federer>Sampras, and so on and so forth, as you have so graciously informed me about, achievements are above everything else ;-)

Federer has been considered the 2nd best clay court player of the era and yet couldn't beat Past prime, Plastic hip, Kuerten during the prime of his career at the French.

Thats all the proof I need about this week clay era. Then you got guys like Tommy Haas doing damage at the French.. Tommy Haas... Yea....

 

[Xemi666]

Federer has been considered the 2nd best clay court player of the era and yet couldn't beat Past prime, Plastic hip, Kuerten during the prime of his career at the French.

Thats all the proof I need about this week clay era. Then you got guys like Tommy Haas doing damage at the French.. Tommy Haas... Yea....

Lol at the prime of his career :lol: Yeah Nadal was also as good on HCs in 2005 as he is now, right? Sampras was also defeated by George Bastl at Wimbledon during the pprime of his career, what a joke grass era that was too :lol:

Kuerten got trounced by pre-prime Safin and past his prime Medvedev at the French, which shows what a joke on clay that era was (according to your logic).

 

[llodra_fan]

i can be a fan of nadal while being objective. those concepts can perfectly co-exist. what is your point?

I have no problem with you being a Nadal fan, He is one of my favorite players too. But it is your logic which you try to pass as "objective" I find irritating. In all of your threads and most of your posts, you've tried to only pull down Federer/his records/his fans while trying to defend everything that is said against Nadal. If you are really "objective", you should do the converse too. Both Federer and Nadal are incredible players and we are actually lucky to see them play at the same time. And each of them gets thrashed by the other's fans here every day. They'll actually be disgusted to accept most of here as their fans. Also, if you are really objective, where are the posts/threads about criticizing/defending other players - especially the likes of Djokovic/Murray/Del potro etc. ?

 

[Anaconda]

Just as the 2000's didn't nearly product the top talent that this era has produced, it produced more depth, but no one would seriously believe (who's followed the game) that Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko are anywheres NEAR close to as good as the MUrray/Nole/Nadal trio of the past few years

Well I play and followed the game, and I can say that peak for peak, Roddick and Safin would certainly be able to hold their own against Murray/Nadal/Djokovic. Using your logic, let me explain........



Roddick from 03/04 would have handled Nadal, Djokovic and Murray on grass and play em even on HC. Roddick from 2008-2010 aka pusher Roddick was comfortably able to overpower Nadal, lead Djokovic h2h and beat Murray at Wimbledon. I watched the W04 final yesterday, and the guy was bombing 145mph serves and crushing 100mph forehands. I have no doubts that a peak Roddick could score wins if the crappy version of Roddick can beat those three in their primes.



Where they would beat Roddick is just from all-round consistency - which they have the weak field to thank; The fact Ferrer is the top 4's main challenger (JMDP at times too) says this all. Also, they do beat Roddick for technical ability, but Roddick's two strengths were pretty epic if you ask me. Just watch Roddick's Dubai tournament ffs, the guy didn't get broken and played Nadal (best year), Djokovic (best year to date), Ferrero, Lopez (best year).







Safin playing in pain and on one leg managed to straight set Djokovic at Wimbledon 2008. Safin wasn't even ranked in the top 50. The guy has beaten Guga at the FO, Agassi at FO, Ferrero at FO (quality clay courters being mentioned in this thread), Sampras at AO and US, Federer at AO, Agassi at AO, Roddick and Hewitt at AO, Djokovic at AO. Do you know what this means? It means Safin has managed to beat every quality opponent he's faced - on the big stage.



Safin would be able to hold his own against anyone and on occasion make it look easy

 

[Indio]

We already saw, Federer MANHANDLED by Kuerten at the French. Need more proof?

That's proof, is it? As I mentioned in another post, that loss took place in 2004, a year in which RF finished 74-6. Apparently 74-6 isn't all that good, is it? He needed to finish at least 75-5 to gain any respect from the "weak era" experts. It is true, losing on clay to Kuerten by that time could be regarded as a bad loss for someone of the stature of RF. Find a high-ranked player who suffered no bad losses in a particular year.

I'll introduce some facts into this debate. Federer, only the 2nd-ranked clay courter of the current period, has accomplished this, so far:
76.6% W-L on clay, 10 Ws (which doesn't seem like much, but when you consider that he's played all of seven tournaments below the Masters level on clay since 2003, it's not that bad), French W and four Fs, six Masters clay court titles, more wins over Top 20s at the French than Muster and Bruguera combined, a clay record of 13-3 versus the best of the previous period: Coria, Moya, Ferrero, Costa, Kafelnikov, Gaudio, Kuerten and Mantilla...
I have little doubt that Nadal, Federer and Djokovic would do extremely well the previous eras (Courier, Bruguera, Muster, followed by Kuerten, Moya, Ferrero...).

Just for the record, Sampras wasn't the clay-court chump that some people say he was. In the first half of his reign, he was probably in the top 8 of clay courters. Not many players did better than his SF and three QFs at the French, along with a title in Rome. Why he faded after 96 I do not know.

 

[objectivity]

I have no problem with you being a Nadal fan, He is one of my favorite players too. But it is your logic which you try to pass as "objective" I find irritating. In all of your threads and most of your posts, you've tried to only pull down Federer/his records/his fans while trying to defend everything that is said against Nadal. If you are really "objective", you should do the converse too. Both Federer and Nadal are incredible players and we are actually lucky to see them play at the same time. And each of them gets thrashed by the other's fans here every day. They'll actually be disgusted to accept most of here as their fans. Also, if you are really objective, where are the posts/threads about criticizing/defending other players - especially the likes of Djokovic/Murray/Del potro etc. ?

when have i EVER "pulled down" Federer? i have always maintained that statistically, he IS THE GREATEST PLAYER. i have always maintained that. i have never ever claimed otherwise. BUT, i argue that he is not some mythical all-court player because he is objectively a baseliner. i have also argued against calling nadal "dirty" for attacking federer's one handed backhand. i have also attacked posters for calling nadal a PED cheater without any evidence. how is that not objective? you tell me.

further more, why must i write about every other player or offer my opinions about them, for me to be objective? the objectivity lies in the argument, not in the sum total of all my arguments.

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

Yeah, I agree,arguments about Fed winning in a weak era are equally stupid. Those people should read about Occam's Razor.

Good to hear others that share this opinion

Why can't we just agree that these achievements are amazing, instead of belittling them?

I wish more people were like us on this subject haha

 

[objectivity]

I have no problem with you being a Nadal fan, He is one of my favorite players too. But it is your logic which you try to pass as "objective" I find irritating. In all of your threads and most of your posts, you've tried to only pull down Federer/his records/his fans while trying to defend everything that is said against Nadal. If you are really "objective", you should do the converse too. Both Federer and Nadal are incredible players and we are actually lucky to see them play at the same time. And each of them gets thrashed by the other's fans here every day. They'll actually be disgusted to accept most of here as their fans. Also, if you are really objective, where are the posts/threads about criticizing/defending other players - especially the likes of Djokovic/Murray/Del potro etc. ?

being objective does NOT mean agreeing with both sides. that is the biggest fallacy that many people (especially Americans) subscribe to. being objective means looking at the hard facts and deciding what does the sum total of the evidence point to. that's all. for eg, too often, we see people criticizing MSNBC for being non-objective because they usually only agree with the Democrats side of things. or criticize atheists for protesting against teaching intelligent design in the classroom, claiming that we have to give equal treatment to all subjects to be objective. that is a logical fallacy. if one set of subjects are clearly wrong or false, the objective and logical thing to do, is to call it out as wrong or false, not give it equal treatment as the correct set of subjects.

 

[10is]

^LMAO!!! You talking about "objectivity" and "logic" is like Cheney talking about peace and
freedom. :lol:

 

[mattennis]

Nadal is a clay beast, of course, and at the same time, four players that were great on clay and would have been his main rivals (on clay) got injured/depressed almost at the same time when they were still quite young: Coria, Gaudio, Ferrero and Kuerten.

Probably Nadal would still have won 8 RG with those four players at their best level and without injuries/depression during those first years of Nadal ( 2005, 2006, 2007...) but he would have had it more difficult.

Basically after 2004, young Nadal only had to care about Federer on clay. Few years later Djokovic also got to a very good level on clay.

But Ferrer, Verdasco, Almagro, Davydenko, Mathieu, Ljubicic, Puerta, Hewitt (on clay, LOL)....would never be as dangerous as those four former players when healthy and at the top of their games.

 

[Crisstti]

Nadal is the best clay courter ever. Regardless if an era is weak, winning as much as he has done on clay is pretty hard to deny; No one else would have done what he has done. As good as Kuerten was (I rank him 3rd all time on clay in terms of peak), he wouldn't have won 8 FO's - he at times was a little erratic and had his physical problems.






However, it is quite hard to deny that this era and the past had suspect clay courters. You have Nadal. Big gap. Federer - slight gap - then you had other dangerous floaters like Davydenko, Nalbandian, Robredo and Almagro were ok but not really knocking the doors down. Obviously from 07 onwards we've seen Djokovic but none of these players have a FO title between them although I suspect Djokovic will win one eventually. In the 90's you had proven champions who don't match Nadal, but completely overpower Nadal's competition. I think people remember players like Muster, Bruguera, Moya, Kuerten, Agassi etc

Are those players better than Fed or Djokovic on clay?.

 

[Crisstti]

Federer has been considered the 2nd best clay court player of the era and yet couldn't beat Past prime, Plastic hip, Kuerten during the prime of his career at the French.

Thats all the proof I need about this week clay era. Then you got guys like Tommy Haas doing damage at the French.. Tommy Haas... Yea....

Federer was hardly on his prime on clay in 2004.

Nadal is a clay beast, of course, and at the same time, four players that were great on clay and would have been his main rivals (on clay) got injured/depressed almost at the same time when they were still quite young: Coria, Gaudio, Ferrero and Kuerten.

Probably Nadal would still have won 8 RG with those four players at their best level and without injuries/depression during those first years of Nadal ( 2005, 2006, 2007...) but he would have had it more difficult.

Basically after 2004, young Nadal only had to care about Federer on clay. Few years later Djokovic also got to a very good level on clay.

But Ferrer, Verdasco, Almagro, Davydenko, Mathieu, Ljubicic, Puerta, Hewitt (on clay, LOL)....would never be as dangerous as those four former players when healthy and at the top of their games.

Lol at Coria, Gaudio and Ferrero being better on clay than Fed or Djokovic. Seriously.

 

[NatF]

^^ Ferrero was a damn good claycourter check his pre-injury results on clay and especially Roland Garros. Coria was very talented too, both had more potential on clay than Djokovic at least IMO.

 

[Who Am I?]

Of course the clay field is weak. It has been since the 90s. It really speaks volume about a certain clay God whose biggest competition on red dirt has come from a grass court specialist and a hard court specialist.

 

[objectivity]

Of course the clay field is weak. It has been since the 90s. It really speaks volume about a certain clay God whose biggest competition on red dirt has come from a grass court specialist and a hard court specialist.

wait a minute... so federer is now a grass court specialist?
wow. that's a new one.

 

[LazyNinja19]

wait a minute... so federer is now a grass court specialist?
wow. that's a new one.

Sharp eyes! :lol:

 

[Who Am I?]

wait a minute... so federer is now a grass court specialist?
wow. that's a new one.

So what else is he then? Definitely not a clay court specialist that's for sure.

 

[NatF]

So what else is he then? Definitely not a clay court specialist that's for sure.

He's not a specialist at all...

 

[Who Am I?]

He's not a specialist at all...

I know what you mean, but his style of play is more compatible on grass and faster HCs than it is on clay. I mean, he isn't a grinder which is the traditional way of playing on clay.

 

[NatF]

I know what you mean, but his style of play is more compatible on grass and faster HCs than it is on clay. I mean, he isn't a grinder which is the traditional way of playing on clay.

Old school claycourters used to use lots of touch shots. Federer has great fitness, speed ans brushstrokes and he's an intelligent player. He has a game very compatible with clay.

 

[objectivity]

Of course the clay field is weak. It has been since the 90s. It really speaks volume about a certain clay God whose biggest competition on red dirt has come from a grass court specialist and a hard court specialist.

so is the grass field weak from 2003-2010 when the supposed god of grass (and tennis overall)'s biggest competition was a clay court specialist and a one slam Fox news contributor? is it? same logic.

 

[objectivity]

Surely you can't believe Ferrer, Djokovic, Federer, Almagro are better than Borg, Lendl, Wilander or Bruguera, Courier, Kafelnikov, and Guga etc. do you?


Federer couldn't even hang with Plastic Hip Guga wayy past his prime at the French

as a matter of fact, i do believe that djkovic and federer are definitely better than Bruguera and Courier and Kafelnikov and maybe Kuerten. yes, i do.