When all is said and done, who will have had the better clay career?

When all is said and done, who will have had the better clay career?

  • Clayderer (Fedr)

    Votes: 18 40.9%
  • Thiem

    Votes: 26 59.1%

  • Total voters
    44

Towny

Hall of Fame
2006 would be my pick for his highest clay level as well (specifically Rome that year imo)

@Towny - When was Federer's best on clay for you?
Difficult to pick an overall year. 2006 had his best Rome and MC appearances. I wouldn't have RG 2006 as his best though. Maybe a little better in 05 and 07. Better finals performance in 2009.

A shame he didn't play Hamburg. Still tired out from Rome. That's the one clay court where I would have favoured him against Nadal.

Maybe 2006 overall in that he didn't have any weaker performances (MC in 05, Rome in 07, MC in 09)
 
In terms of level, it's Federer and it's not close. That's unlikely to change given that Thiem is already 25. There aren't many players who play a much better level of tennis later in their career.
25 is not late in your career these days, not even close. Almost all the top 15 are over 30, and there is hardly anyone in the top 100 over 20. 38 years olds (eg Serena and Federer) are winning slams. Mediocre players like Pennetta, Na, and Berdych are either winning slams or consistently staying in the top 10 into their 30s. Tennis is an older game than it has ever been, or atleast then it has been since the mid 60s. 25 is very early in your career for the standards of todays tennis.

I do not know how much Thiem will improve, largely as I do not even know if the is that talented or good to begin with, but he can potentially improve his level of play (especialy on clay) a ton.
 
Due to having Nadal around pretty much Fed's entire clay career should be considered. Now I am assuming that Thiem won't have to deal with a top level Nadal in a few years. This makes Thiem's competition much less impressive.
The depth of the clay field in Federer's era was super poor, which I always point out when people use the Nadal excuse. It wasnt a good field even with Nadal in it.

However as things look now Thiem will play in a super weak clay field as far as depth, and he wont even have a decent Nadal either, which makes it even worse. That could change of course.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
Who knows. One thing I really don't like hearing though is when people try and make out that even if Thiem's clay achievements end up surpassing Federer's that they somehow won't be as legitimate just because Federer faced a younger Nadal but it isn't Dominic's fault that he was born when he was so if he does eventually become the greater cc player then so be it. Results will always mean more than a player's competition, which is subjective anyway.
You know, the competition is something which can't be ignored. Federer definitely hard stronger competition on clay. His mission was harder to achieve.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The depth of the clay field in Federer's era was super poor, which I always point out when people use the Nadal excuse. It wasnt a good field even with Nadal in it.

However as things look now Thiem will play in a super weak clay field as far as depth, and he wont even have a decent Nadal either, which makes it even worse. That could change of course.
The depth of the clay field has always been bad, no need to constrain it only to Fed's era.
 
You know, the competition is something which can't be ignored. Federer definitely hard stronger competition on clay. His mission was harder to achieve.
I agree compared to Thiem he had harder competition only due to Nadal, but I find it annoying when people try to imply Federer had super tough clay competition overall in general clay evaluations. He (Thiem as well, so it isnt much difference here) had a super weak clay field as far as depth, the only thing that puts his clay competition something above appaling is that Nadal was there. I laugh at people who say "he would have 4 or 5 RG titles without Nadal" which is certainly possible, and imply that shows he is a 4 or 5 RG caliber clay player (he definitely is not) and that is what he would win in any other era (hell no).

Probably the only player with 2 RG titles I might rank lower than Federer on clay is Theim if he gets there (depending on a variety of how things play out). I do not rank him over people like Bruguera and Courier on clay, let alone someone like Kuerten (lol some people actually do this using the Nadal excuse) just because he played Nadal on clay.
 
The depth of the clay field has always been bad, no need to constrain it only to Fed's era.
No it wasnt. You obviously didnt follow the 70s, 80s, and 90s. The depth of the clay was very strong and often deep with lots of specialists many of those periods. Even the early 2000s for awhile. It has been terrible since 2005 or so, and hasnt really ever changed, other than maybe 2009-2011 to some extent.

Remember not only Nadal and Federer, but also Djokovic had an absolute stroll to every RG final in any year he was playing half decent (except for the year he played Nadal in the semis, and Federer playing one of his best clay matches ever in the semis).

A lot of that is too due to the overemphasis on hard courts today. Because of that 95% of the players have hard courts as their best surface, and there are almost no specialists on any of clay, grass, carpet (carpet barely exists now) leading to very weak fields on all those surfaces, but usually pretty strong fields on hard courts since everyone is trying to be a hard court specialists today.
 

Lleytonstation

G.O.A.T.
I agree compared to Thiem he had harder competition only due to Nadal, but I find it annoying when people try to imply Federer had super tough clay competition overall in general clay evaluations. He (Thiem as well, so it isnt much difference here) had a super weak clay field as far as depth, the only thing that puts his clay competition something above appaling is that Nadal was there. I laugh at people who say "he would have 4 or 5 RG titles without Nadal" which is certainly possible, and imply that shows he is a 4 or 5 RG caliber clay player (he definitely is not) and that is what he would win in any other era (hell no).

Probably the only player with 2 RG titles I might rank lower than Federer on clay is Theim if he gets there (depending on a variety of how things play out). I do not rank him over people like Bruguera and Courier on clay, let alone someone like Kuerten (lol some people actually do this using the Nadal excuse) just because he played Nadal on clay.
I guess the difference isn't the field they played in but the level of Nadal, as I believe Nadal stopped Fed at the French like 5 or 6 times. Not sure how many times Thiem has lost to Nadal at the French, twice?

Either way I think looking at Nadal's level during both players career on clay is more important than you think.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
I agree compared to Thiem he had harder competition only due to Nadal, but I find it annoying when people try to imply Federer had super tough clay competition overall in general clay evaluations. He (Thiem as well, so it isnt much difference here) had a super weak clay field as far as depth, the only thing that puts his clay competition something above appaling is that Nadal was there. I laugh at people who say "he would have 4 or 5 RG titles without Nadal" which is certainly possible, and imply that shows he is a 4 or 5 RG caliber clay player (he definitely is not) and that is what he would win in any other era (hell no).

Probably the only player with 2 RG titles I might rank lower than Federer on clay is Theim if he gets there (depending on a variety of how things play out). I do not rank him over people like Bruguera and Courier on clay, let alone someone like Kuerten (lol some people actually do this using the Nadal excuse) just because he played Nadal on clay.
Why does the overall competition matter when you have to face the clay GOAT pretty much in every tournament?
 
Why does the overall competition matter when you have to face the clay GOAT pretty much in every tournament?
Depth mens a lot. Federer had a cakewalk to the finals of every clay tournament in his prime since everyone but Nadal sucked (Djokovic didnt even start being good on clay until 2008 and they didnt play at RG until 2011). That would not happen in any other era since he is certainly not that great on clay, he is no Nadal or Borg.
 
I guess the difference isn't the field they played in but the level of Nadal, as I believe Nadal stopped Fed at the French like 5 or 6 times. Not sure how many times Thiem has lost to Nadal at the French, twice?

Either way I think looking at Nadal's level during both players career on clay is more important than you think.
Yeah but there is probably (actually scratch probably, make that definitely) no era in the 20th century Federer would be making the finals of RG 5 or 6 times in the first place except the actual one he played in. Nor Djokovic (who probably will end up with that many RG finals or more, only due to the abysmal clay field of late).
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
Depth mens a lot. Federer had a cakewalk to the finals of every clay tournament in his prime since everyone but Nadal sucked (Djokovic didnt even start being good on clay until 2008 and they didnt play at RG until 2011). That would not happen in any other era since he is certainly not that great on clay, he is no Nadal or Borg.
Come on...You want to tell me that beating in-form Del Potro in RG 2009 was a cakewalk?
 

BGod

Legend
I'm not a potato that thinks 3>1 at face value. Context is important.

So Thiem winning 3 French Open titles, which I think is plausible at this point wouldn't elevate him ahead of Roger.

AS OF NOW
W: 1>0 Federer
F: 5>1 Federer
SF: 7>3 Federer

I'd consider Thiem maybe if he had the following:
W: 3>1 Thiem
F: 5-5
SF: 7-7

And this means 4 great years from Thiem including 3 that lead to a title. It's plausible but I wouldn't bet on it. Something tells me he wins 2 and finishes with 4 finals. Not enough for me.
 
What is your point anyway? Do you expect him to face strong competition from the first round? Name players who had it tougher on clay then.
Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten, Courier, Bruguera, Vilas (since he faced Borg who is basically Nadal, but the overall clay field was way better), and many others all faced far stronger clay competition overall than Federer.

What are you arguing now, Federer had the toughest clay competition in history. You Fed fans are a hoot at times.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten, Courier, Bruguera, Vilas (since he faced Borg who is basically Nadal, but the overall clay field was way better), and many others all faced far stronger clay competition overall than Federer.

What are you arguing now, Federer had the toughest clay competition in history. You Fed fans are a hoot at times.
I'm not a Federer fan lol.
 
And Thiem has played who? And you can't say Nadal or Djokovic cause you just argued about the field other than those guys.
I already conceded Thiem's clay competition is terrible, and probably going to be even weaker than Federer's, only since he wont face Nadal, and the rest of the field will be about just as bad. Atleast you sure as heck wont ever have annoying and deliriously stupid people arguing he deserves 5 or 6 RG titles like some delusional Federer supporters do though (more likely you will people belittling the success he does have, as this thread already indicates).
 
Lol, what are you trying to prove? I'm not a Federer fan and never was. I'm just writing that he definitely had it tougher than Thiem does.
If you were able to read properly you would notice I conceded Federer probably will wind up having tougher clay competition than Thiem, I was just talking general that Federer fans try to trump him up to ridiculous degrees, some even trying to argue he should be rated 2nd or 3rd all time on clay behind Nadal and maybe Borg (haha, my side splits with stiches everytime I read that) only since he played Nadal on clay and he is really a 5 or 6 moral winner of RG or something.

And you would not be trying to argue Federer had it super tough on clay if you werent a Federer fan, since no non Federer fan would ever argue something so stupid.
 

Lleytonstation

G.O.A.T.
I already conceded Thiem's clay competition is terrible, and probably going to be even weaker than Federer's, only since he wont face Nadal, and the rest of the field will be about just as bad. Atleast you sure as heck wont ever have annoying and deliriously stupid people arguing he deserves 5 or 6 RG titles like some delusional Federer supporters do though (more likely you will people belittling the success he does have, as this thread already indicates).
I never said Fed should have anything, he has what he has and Thiem has what he has. However Thiem has time.

All I am saying is that I look at Nadal and his level that determines who had a better clay career when comparing Fed and Thiem.

And I don't see this changing unless Nadal and Djokovic start dropping their level at RG.
 
I never said Fed should have anything, he has what he has and Thiem has what he has. However Thiem has time.

All I am saying is that I look at Nadal and his level that determines who had a better clay career when comparing Fed and Thiem.

And I don't see this changing unless Nadal and Djokovic start dropping their level at RG.
I agree on that. If Thiem can not win minimum 2 RG titles, and preferably 3, and tons of Masters on clay, with the clay field he is likely to have, he definitely isnt that good a clay courter. Since the clay field he is going to win is probably going to even trump what Nadal and Federer faced in terms of patheticness which is saying something.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
If you were able to read properly you would notice I conceded Federer probably will wind up having tougher clay competition than Thiem, I was just talking general that Federer fans try to trump him up to ridiculous degrees, some even trying to argue he should be rated 2nd or 3rd all time on clay behind Nadal and maybe Borg (haha, my side splits with stiches everytime I read that) only since he played Nadal on clay and he is really a 5 or 6 moral winner of RG or something.

And you would not be trying to argue Federer had it super tough on clay if you werent a Federer fan, since no non Federer fan would ever argue something so stupid.
My favorite player is Nadal.
 
My favorite player is Nadal.
Awww ok, that explains it then. You want it to be said Nadal is so amazing he compiled double the clay record of the 2nd best clay courter ever (Borg, or maybe for you it is Federer, lol) despite facing the 2nd or 3rd best clay courter ever Federer, and a super strong and deep clay field that is the best in history. Thanks for clearing that up.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
Awww ok, that explains it then. You want it to be said Nadal is so amazing he compiled double the clay record of the 2nd best clay courter ever (Borg, or maybe for you it is Federer, lol) despite facing the 2nd or 3rd best clay courter ever Federer, and a super strong and deep clay field that is the best in history. Thanks for clearing that up.
I never said Federer is better than Borg on clay. This would be a real joke.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
No it wasnt. You obviously didnt follow the 70s, 80s, and 90s. The depth of the clay was very strong and often deep with lots of specialists many of those periods. Even the early 2000s for awhile. It has been terrible since 2005 or so, and hasnt really ever changed, other than maybe 2009-2011 to some extent.

Remember not only Nadal and Federer, but also Djokovic had an absolute stroll to every RG final in any year he was playing half decent (except for the year he played Nadal in the semis, and Federer playing one of his best clay matches ever in the semis).

A lot of that is too due to the overemphasis on hard courts today. Because of that 95% of the players have hard courts as their best surface, and there are almost no specialists on any of clay, grass, carpet (carpet barely exists now) leading to very weak fields on all those surfaces, but usually pretty strong fields on hard courts since everyone is trying to be a hard court specialists today.
I should have been more specific: during Nadal's playing years, the clay field has always been pretty bad. No need to constrain it only to Fed's era.
 
I should have been more specific: during Nadal's playing years, the clay field has always been pretty bad. No need to constrain it only to Fed's era.
Oh ok. In that case I 100% agree. The clay field has sucked since 2005, maybe since 2002. Except for 2009-2011, which in fairness to Nadal, Federer, Djokovic they all had success in, so the brief time any of those 3 faced any good competition on clay besides one person they all shone at some point. That was the only time, well 2009 and 2011 anyway, you had 4 or 5 players sometimes who were strong on clay, and a few dangerous people lower down.
 
Only came in here to watch all the people who normally tell us all that slams are the only thing which matter flip flop and say that one RG, in this instance, will be better than two.

(I agree, FWIW, but my opinion is consistent on it regardless of which player I'm discussing)
 
Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten, Courier, Bruguera, Vilas (since he faced Borg who is basically Nadal, but the overall clay field was way better), and many others all faced far stronger clay competition overall than Federer.

What are you arguing now, Federer had the toughest clay competition in history. You Fed fans are a hoot at times.
Could you spell out how many times Vilas, Courier, Bruguera beat a commendably strong opponent en route to their finals and semis at RG? Match by match, that is.

I have 3 for Fed: Davydenko RG 07 (one of the chokiest straight-setters, but if Fed didn't play some clutch ball on serve it would've still gone the distance), Delpo 09 and Djokovic 11. Also 2 for Djoker: Tsonga 12 and Murray 15.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Oh ok. In that case I 100% agree. The clay field has sucked since 2005, maybe since 2002. Except for 2009-2011, which in fairness to Nadal, Federer, Djokovic they all had success in, so the brief time any of those 3 faced any good competition on clay besides one person they all shone at some point. That was the only time, well 2009 and 2011 anyway, you had 4 or 5 players sometimes who were strong on clay, and a few dangerous people lower down.
2005-2009/2011/2013 had a strong clay field with 2010/2012 and 2014 to now being quite disappointing.
The Fedal clay battles from 2005 to 2009 were quite something to watch. Nadal had to deal with a lot of clay depth in his early years.
 
2005-2009/2011/2013 had a strong clay field with 2010/2012 and 2014 to now being quite disappointing.
The Fedal clay battles from 2005 to 2009 were quite something to watch. Nadal had to deal with a lot of clay depth in his early years.
2005-2008 wasnt strong at all. Nadal, Federer, and everyone else sucked. Djokovic wasnt even good on clay at all yet, except maybe a bit for 2008. Who was the 3rd best clay courter, Ferrer or Davydenko? Remember Coria was 100% done after 2005 (and already significantly weaker in 05) and Ferrero 100% done after 2003.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
25 is not late in your career these days, not even close. Almost all the top 15 are over 30, and there is hardly anyone in the top 100 over 20. 38 years olds (eg Serena and Federer) are winning slams. Mediocre players like Pennetta, Na, and Berdych are either winning slams or consistently staying in the top 10 into their 30s. Tennis is an older game than it has ever been, or atleast then it has been since the mid 60s. 25 is very early in your career for the standards of todays tennis.

I do not know how much Thiem will improve, largely as I do not even know if the is that talented or good to begin with, but he can potentially improve his level of play (especialy on clay) a ton.
Regardless of the state of the current tennis field, 25 is by no means 'very early' in a player's career and there are not many players who play better tennis later in their careers than earlier. Some are playing great tennis around the age of 30, but almost all of them were playing an equivalent level of tennis when they were around 25. Let's look at some examples:

Federer - best year 2006, age 24/25
Nadal - best year 2010, age 23/24
Djokovic - best year 2015 (age 27/28), but second best year 2011, age 23/24
Murray - best year 2016 (age 28/29), but second best period (2/4 slams won + Olympics) from 2012 Olympics - 2013 Wimbledon, age 25/26
Del Potro - best year 2009, age 20/21
Berdych - best year arguably 2010, age 24/25
Tsonga - best year 2008, age 22/23
Cilic - best year 2014, age 25/26
Raonic - best year 2016, age 25/26
Nishikori - best year 2014, age 24/25
Dimitrov - best year 2017, age 25/26

There are others who played their best tennis much later:

Anderson - best year 2018, age 31/32
Isner - best year 2018, age 32/33
Ferrer - best year 2013. age 30/31
Wawrinka - best year 2014/2015, age 28-30

But this isn't the new normal. The vast majority of recent players have played better in their mid 20s or at least as good. Anderson and Isner have very serve based games, which tends not to decline as players get older in the same way. They've also significantly benefited from the decline of the Big 3. Wawrinka took off because of Magnus Norman, who came in 2013. These guys are the exception, not the rule.

To reiterate, many players nowadays are playing some of their best tennis in their late 20s and 30s. However, very few of them weren't already playing at the same level in their mid 20s. The idea that Thiem is going to be playing a lot better in his late 20s than he is now is unfounded IMO
 
Could you spell out how many times Vilas, Courier, Bruguera beat a commendably strong opponent en route to their finals and semis at RG? Match by match, that is.

I have 3 for Fed: Davydenko RG 07 (one of the chokiest straight-setters, but if Fed didn't play some clutch ball on serve it would've still gone the distance), Delpo 09 and Djokovic 11. Also 2 for Djoker: Tsonga 12 and Murray 15.
LOL Davydenko in 07, are you serious. A guy who has never made a slam final and who is MUCH better on hard courts/indoor courts than clay. And I remember that match well and Davydenko choked all the big points (as usual for him, one of the biggest slam chokers ever in the top 10, and I liked his game).

Courier in RG 92 went through one of the most insane draws in history. Mancini, Muster, Agassi, Medvedev, Ivanisevic, Korda, and lost only 1 set. Bruguera beat Medvedev (who was back then a top clay courter, and a better clay courter than Del Potro or Davydenko) 2 or 3 of the times he made the RG final, Sampras once (of course not truly a clay elite, but the best player in the world that period so still a tough out in a late round), Courier in the semis in 94, dont remember every opponent but a lot more than Federer faced for sure.
 
Regardless of the state of the current tennis field, 25 is by no means 'very early' in a player's career and there are not many players who play better tennis later in their careers than earlier. Some are playing great tennis around the age of 30, but almost all of them were playing an equivalent level of tennis when they were around 25. Let's look at some examples:

Federer - best year 2006, age 24/25
Nadal - best year 2010, age 23/24
Djokovic - best year 2015 (age 27/28), but second best year 2011, age 23/24
Murray - best year 2016 (age 28/29), but second best period (2/4 slams won + Olympics) from 2012 Olympics - 2013 Wimbledon, age 25/26
Del Potro - best year 2009, age 20/21
Berdych - best year arguably 2010, age 24/25
Tsonga - best year 2008, age 22/23
Cilic - best year 2014, age 25/26
Raonic - best year 2016, age 25/26
Nishikori - best year 2014, age 24/25
Dimitrov - best year 2017, age 25/26

There are others who played their best tennis much later:

Anderson - best year 2018, age 31/32
Isner - best year 2018, age 32/33
Ferrer - best year 2013. age 30/31
Wawrinka - best year 2014/2015, age 28-30

But this isn't the new normal. The vast majority of recent players have played better in their mid 20s or at least as good. Anderson and Isner have very serve based games, which tends not to decline as players get older in the same way. They've also significantly benefited from the decline of the Big 3. Wawrinka took off because of Magnus Norman, who came in 2013. These guys are the exception, not the rule.

To reiterate, many players nowadays are playing some of their best tennis in their late 20s and 30s. However, very few of them weren't already playing at the same level in their mid 20s. The idea that Thiem is going to be playing a lot better in his late 20s than he is now is unfounded IMO
Good breakdown, but you listed atleast 4 guys who played their best tennis at much older than 25.

And many of your earlier examples either have had a lot of injuries (Del Potro, Cilic, Nishikori) or started their careers in a whole different time before this new age situation has really taken hold (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Tsonga, Berdych, Murray, etc..)

I still stand by my earlier comment in this day in age it is EASILY believable there is a strong possability Thiem's best tennis could be in the future. In fact given his current trajectory I would be very surprised if it were not, and it would not even be surprising if it were atleast several years from now. Especialy given the current landscape of the old tennis game on both the womens and mens side.
 
LOL Davydenko in 07, are you serious. A guy who has never made a slam final and who is MUCH better on hard courts/indoor courts than clay. And I remember that match well and Davydenko choked all the big points (as usual for him, one of the biggest slam chokers ever in the top 10, and I liked his game).
Courier in RG 92 went through one of the most insane draws in history. Mancini, Muster, Agassi, Medvedev, Ivanisevic, Korda, and lost only 1 set.
And none of them gave Jim any resistance except, remarkably, Ivanisevic, who is worse on clay than Davydenko in fact. Come on, someone who got dominated isn't a strong opponent. Shows how good Courier's level was - yes, that's a different question though.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Could you spell out how many times Vilas, Courier, Bruguera beat a commendably strong opponent en route to their finals and semis at RG? Match by match, that is.

I have 3 for Fed: Davydenko RG 07 (one of the chokiest straight-setters, but if Fed didn't play some clutch ball on serve it would've still gone the distance), Delpo 09 and Djokovic 11. Also 2 for Djoker: Tsonga 12 and Murray 15.
I'm not sure about Murray 2015. Djokovic let his foot off the gas after he dominated Andy in the first 2 sets. That match shouldn't have gone to 5.
 
And none of them gave Jim any resistance except, remarkably, Ivanisevic, who is worse on clay than Davydenko in fact. Come on, someone who got dominated isn't a strong opponent. Shows how good Courier's level was - yes, that's a different question though.
I mentioned Ivanisevic and Korda only as add ons, they were the 5th and 6th toughest people Courier faced in that draw, which shows what an insanely strong draw it is. If they were the 2nd toughest people Courier faced like Davydenko was for Federer you would be right, but they werent even close.

Anyone will look at that draw and say it is a super tough clay draw. Courier dominated it since he was that great on clay at his peak. Now if you are saying Federer (or for a real laugh Dominic Thiem) would not ever go through a draw like that so easily (or probably at all) you are right, since Courier at his peak is a better clay courter than Federer or Thiem.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
I give Thiem 1 RG max from here on out, so it'll be Federer who ends up better on both accounts as it should be anyway because Thiem isn't really that good at all. Certainly no comparison to Federer on any surface.

I just don't see a guy who's as hit and miss as Thiem is winning any more than 1 RG (and that might be his only slam).
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
[QUOTddE="angrybirds89, post: 13301858, member: 765123"]2005-2008 wasnt strong at all. Nadal, Federer, and everyone else sucked. Djokovic wasnt even good on clay at all yet, except maybe a bit for 2008. Who was the 3rd best clay courter, Ferrer or Davydenko? Remember Coria was 100% done after 2005 (and already significantly weaker in 05) and Ferrero 100% done after 2003.

The battles alone with Fed from 2005-2008 in RG 2005/2006/2007,Hamburg 2007,MC 2006/2007/2008 and Hamburg 2008 and Rome 2006 all being tight matched make it tough enough. It can can take one great player as competition to make a field tougher.
I agree the rest of the field was behind but some good individual performances happened vs Nadal in matches. Djokovic RG 2008 and Hamburg 2008,Hewitt Hamburg 2007,Puerta RG 2005,Matthieu RG 2006,Coria 2005 MC,2005 Rome 2005,Ferrer Rome 2005 etc etc.
 
Thiem has a better career win percentage and more devastating shots. Coria a better mover and defender.
Agree. Coria just did not have the firepower to take things down in the business end of events, not even on clay. Nor the mental strength as his chokes in all his RG losses in his prime years shows, not that Thiem is the toughest mentally either, but I still think he is over Coria in that.
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Agree. Coria just did not have the firepower to take things down in the business end of events, not even on clay. Nor the mental strength as his chokes in all his RG losses in his prime years shows, not that Thiem is the toughest mentally either, but I still think he is over Coria in that.
Thiem has firepower to hit Nadal off the court. Coria couldn’t do that.
 
Top