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

[angrybirds89]

Only if they just look at the names. Anyone looking at the scorelines should see that the draw didn't turn out tough.

So you are faulting Courier for being so on fire he won easily? I genuinely do not understand that logic. If Federer say had a draw of a healthy in form Del Potro in the round of 16, Soderling in the quarters, Djokovic in the semis, and Nadal in the final in 2011 or 2012 and won the event easily (and yes before you say it, that would be an even tougher draw than Courier's just because of Djokovic/Nadal at the end) would you say he didnt really face competition or tough opponents since he played so well he won easily?

 

[Steve0904]

Thiem has firepower to hit Nadal off the court. Coria couldn’t do that.

Thiem has the firepower yes, but he's hitting old Nadal off the court. Huge difference between present day Nadal and 2005 Nadal as anybody who seen 2005 Nadal will attest to.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

So you are faulting Courier for being so on fire he won easily? I genuinely do not understand that logic. If Federer say had a draw of a healthy in form Del Potro in the round of 16, Soderling in the quarters, Djokovic in the semis, and Nadal in the final in 2011 or 2012 and won the event easily (and yes before you say it, that would be an even tougher draw than Courier's just because of Djokovic/Nadal at the end) would you say he didnt really face competition or tough opponents since he played so well he won easily?

If Federer beats them easily, they must have played poorly, because his peak level is not so high as to dismantle them all when they are playing well themselves. Courier has a higher peak level at RG I suppose, but also not so high as to destroy Muster, Medvedev and Agassi if they were anywhere near their own best, so I'm pretty sure they weren't.

 

[angrybirds89]

If Federer beats them easily, they must have played poorly, because his peak level is not so high as to dismantle them all when they are playing well themselves. Courier has a higher peak level at RG I suppose, but also not so high as to destroy Muster, Medvedev and Agassi if they were anywhere near their own best, so I'm pretty sure they weren't.

Fair enough. I still say even if they were not, that is overall a tougher overall RG draw than any Federer has ever had though, and he has had numerous ones that overall would be.

 

[beard]

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.

Affirmative. Thiem is so behind at the moment ant yet Fed fans make excuses in advance...

You know, the competition is something which can't be ignored. Federer definitely hard stronger competition on clay. His mission was harder to achieve.

Fed got banged to Nadal on FO, and that was PEAK Fed against peak Nadal. Maybe we haven't seen peak Thiem yet? Who knows what result would be PEAK Thiem against peak Nadal? I think that peak Thiem would be better that peak Federer against Nadal... He has power to outlast Nadal, something like Soderling had...Other words Federer is better matchup for Nadal than Thiem. And Thiem have something Fed don't have...balls!

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Fair enough. I still say even if they were not, that is overall a tougher overall RG draw than any Federer has ever had though, and he has had numerous ones that overall would be.

You mean excluding Nadal.
Federer's 2009 draw may have been tougher as well. I wouldn't big up Acasuso and Haas, especially the latter who Federer should've beaten in straights if he hadn't almost committed one of the worst chokes ever, but del Potro was pretty tough and could've even plausibly beat Fed in straights. Too bad he was unable to build up on that level because of the constant injuries.

 

[angrybirds89]

Thiem would have to utterly destroy the current Nadal at RG for it to be more impressive than Federer taking the Nadal of 06-07 to 4 sets honestly. Nadal is that much weaker than he was then already, with more decline to come.

 

[angrybirds89]

You mean excluding Nadal.
Federer's 2009 draw may have been tougher as well. I wouldn't big up Acasuso and Haas, especially the latter who Federer should've beaten in straights if he hadn't almost committed one of the worst chokes ever, but del Potro was pretty tough and could've even plausibly beat Fed in straights. Too bad he was unable to build up on that level because of the constant injuries.

I agree on Federer's 2009 draw. And I definitely rate that his hardest draw at RG despite not facing Nadal, which just proves my original point is isnt all about 1 player. That is the only year at RG I would say Federer had a tough draw to the final, maybe 2011 only since he had to beat a peak Djokovic.

 

[angrybirds89]

Thiem has firepower to hit Nadal off the court. Coria couldn’t do that.

In fairness Coria did battle a young and much faster Nadal than the current one super hard in the 05 Rome final. Definitely not by hitting him off the court, but still Thiem will probably never face a Nadal at that level, even though 05 Nadal also wasnt fully prime Nadal.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I agree on Federer's 2009 draw. And I definitely rate that his hardest draw at RG despite not facing Nadal, which just proves my original point is isnt all about 1 player. That is the only year at RG I would say Federer had a tough draw to the final, maybe 2011 only since he had to beat a peak Djokovic.

The current clay era is certainly shallow and has been since Coria's demise, however I still say Federer and especially Djokovic could plausibly win 2 RGs in the 90s depending on when they peak. If Sampras can get to multiple QFs (with a weaker draw his top seed brought), so do they, and then it depends on who peaks on the day. Considering late 90s, 96, 98, 99 editions are winnable for sure.

 

[mike danny]

[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.

It's nice to find another poster who values individual performances

 

[angrybirds89]

The current clay era is certainly shallow and has been since Coria's demise, however I still say Federer and especially Djokovic could plausibly win 2 RGs in the 90s depending on when they peak. If Sampras can get to multiple QFs (with a weaker draw his top seed brought), so do they, and then it depends on who peaks on the day. Considering late 90s, 96, 98, 99 editions are winnable for sure.

Oh yeah I agree 2 RG titles in the 90s are possible (not certain, but possible). 3 is even a very outside possability for one of them, unlikely IMO, but within the scope of possability. Just as 0 is possible, although unlikely, probably even more unlikely than 3. I just do not agree with the people who act that just because Federer and Djokovic would have won 5 RG titles each without Nadal, it means they are 5 time RG caliber players and that is what they would win, if not more, in any era. It seems even you do not feel that way.

Anyway if you take Lendl and Wilander away from each other, both probably have 5 RG titles, and the remaining clay field is still probably better (although not great either) than what either Federer or Djokovic have without Nadal. Kuerten without his hip problems easily wins 5 RG titles, or more, and that is definitely against a stronger field than the new one Federer and Djokovic have sans Nadal. At the very least I see absolutely no reason based on hypotheticals to rate either Djokovic or Federer over those three at the very least. I might reconsider Djokovic if he wins at minimum a 2nd RG title and adds to his current clay achievements, but not yet.

 

[mike danny]

In fairness Coria did battle a young and much faster Nadal than the current one super hard in the 05 Rome final. Definitely not by hitting him off the court, but still Thiem will probably never face a Nadal at that level, even though 05 Nadal also wasnt fully prime Nadal.

2005 Nadal wasn't fully prime Nadal, but he was as close to his clay prime as he could be. 2005 Nadal would eat Thiem alive on clay.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Oh yeah I agree 2 RG titles in the 90s are possible (not certain, but possible). 3 is even a very outside possability for one of them, unlikely IMO, but within the scope of possability. Just as 0 is possible, although unlikely, probably even more unlikely than 3. I just do not agree with the people who act that just because Federer and Djokovic would have won 5 RG titles each without Nadal, it means they are 5 time RG caliber players and that is what they would win, if not more, in any era. It seems even you do not feel that way.

Yeah, high five on that. 1-2 RG most likely, so Fed/Djok can be debated against two-time RG winners in Courier and Bruguera + Vilas who won 1 RG and 1 USO on clay, but putting them on Wilander/Kuerten's level or even above is out of the question.

I don't zealously worship at the Federer altar; that he is the OE greatest and possibly GOAT doesn't mean he has to be argued as greatest as possibly thinkable in anything. Quite the opposite in fact, he is rightfully a GOAT-tier player on his proper merit, no exaggerations required.

 

[mike danny]

Oh yeah I agree 2 RG titles in the 90s are possible (not certain, but possible). 3 is even a very outside possability for one of them, unlikely IMO, but within the scope of possability. Just as 0 is possible, although unlikely, probably even more unlikely than 3. I just do not agree with the people who act that just because Federer and Djokovic would have won 5 RG titles each without Nadal, it means they are 5 time RG caliber players and that is what they would win, if not more, in any era. It seems even you do not feel that way.

Anyway if you take Lendl and Wilander away from each other, both probably have 5 RG titles, and the remaining clay field is still probably better (although not great either) than what either Federer or Djokovic have without Nadal. Kuerten without his hip problems easily wins 5 RG titles, or more, and that is definitely against a stronger field than the new one Federer and Djokovic have sans Nadal. At the very least I see absolutely no reason based on hypotheticals to rate either Djokovic or Federer over those three at the very least. I might reconsider Djokovic if he wins at minimum a 2nd RG title and adds to his current clay achievements, but not yet.

Fedovic on clay to me are not tougher players than Hewitt/Roddick/Safin on grass and HC. Thier 2004 (Federer) and 2015 (Djokovic) RG losses prove that they wouldn't dominate the clay field even without Nadal.

I mean, yeah, they would win several RG titles without Rafa, but it's not because of their clay court prowess. It's because they are incredible tennis players overall and can adapt to anything in this era.

 

[RS]

It's nice to find another poster who values individual performances

In the past I used to underlook them at times I admit . I look at them a lot more now. It is applicable to all of the big 3.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

2005 Nadal wasn't fully prime Nadal, but he was as close to his clay prime as he could be. 2005 Nadal would eat Thiem alive on clay.

2005 Claydal is absolutely better than any 2014+ Claydal except perhaps 2017 RG Nadal...

 

[angrybirds89]

Fedovic on clay to me are not tougher players than Hewitt/Roddick/Safin on grass and HC. Thier 2004 (Federer) and 2015 (Djokovic) RG losses prove that they wouldn't dominate the clay field even without Nadal.

I mean, yeah, they would win several RG titles without Rafa, but it's not because of their clay court prowess. It's because they are incredible tennis players overall and can adapt to anything in this era.

I agree. Well minus Safin on grass only, I think Hewitt/Roddick/Safin on HC and Hewitt/Roddick on grass are definitely at a level up with Federer/Djokovic on clay. Part of that being Federer and/or Djokovic on clay being overrated by some people IMHO, but also perhaps even moreso Hewitt and Roddick being brutally underrated on some sectres of this forum; there seems to be a lot of anti sentiment against both this forum, and I am a bit stunned at Roddick being destroyed by Wawrinka on all the playing level polls despite Stan having 3 slams. I think they were damaged and unlucky due to being stuck with Federer, than Djokovic/Federer were with being stuck with Nadal in what otherwise was a pretty lacking clay field. Since the hard court/grass field of those years even beyond Federer was quite strong, moreso than the clay field.

 

[mike danny]

2005 Claydal is absolutely better than any 2014+ Claydal except perhaps 2017 RG Nadal...

Think about today's match. Against 2005 Nadal, this Thiem would see so many powerful shots come back with interest and his dropshots would be rendered useless.

 

[angrybirds89]

Think about today's match. Against 2005 Nadal, this Thiem would see so many powerful shots come back with interest and his dropshots would be rendered useless.

Coria did have a lot of touch and guile, and could almost match Nadal's running and defense, which you need to have against peak Nadal on clay if you dont have utterly brutal power that can go right through his insane defense like Soderling a couple times, maybe peak Del Potro had he stayed healthy and improved, and for a set or two but rarely a match peak Federer. Thiem doesnt really quite fit the bill on either count.

 

[StrongRule]

Think about today's match. Against 2005 Nadal, this Thiem would see so many powerful shots come back with interest and his dropshots would be rendered useless.

Exactly. 2005 Nadal was so fast, it was unreal stuff.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

2005 Nadal wasn't fully prime Nadal, but he was as close to his clay prime as he could be. 2005 Nadal would eat Thiem alive on clay.

2017 Nadal hits more pace and spin on groundstrokes than in 2005. Also superior serve and dominant at FO.
Was 19 yr old Fed better than 31 yr old Fed?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Think about today's match. Against 2005 Nadal, this Thiem would see so many powerful shots come back with interest and his dropshots would be rendered useless.

The dropshots were great actually, but the confidence knowing Nadal wasn't getting to them definitely helped. Hitting such great shots against young Cheetahdal who would keep making you hit another shot even after several great ones, was so much more difficult. The crazy defence would frustrate Thiem to no end and he'd ballbash himself into oblivion.

 

[angrybirds89]

2017 Nadal hits more pace and spin on groundstrokes than in 2005. Also superior serve and dominant at FO.
Was 19 yr old Fed better than 31 yr old Fed?

Don't you mean 2019 Nadal though, since that is who Thiem is currently playing, not 2017 Nadal. There is a fairly big difference between even 2017 Nadal and 2019 Nadal, I doubt 2019 Nadal would destroy a pretty in form Wawrinka who had just beaten Murray in an incredible match in the RG final.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Was 19 yr old Fed better than 31 yr old Fed?

No. What about Borg, Wilander, Chang, Sampras? Different story, huh?

 

[angrybirds89]

No. What about Borg, Wilander, Chang, Sampras? Different story, huh?

Under the old standards of the game (before the recent trend to a much older game) Federer was actually a quite late bloomer, believe it or not. Relative to Nadal and even Djokovic he definitely was. As well as those you mentioned, and probably Agassi.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

2005 Nadal won significantly lower percentage of service points on clay than 2017 Nadal. 2nd serve MUCH better in 2017.
Also, Nadal won higher percentage of points on return in 2017 as well!

 

[angrybirds89]

@AnOctorokForDinner, the only thing that is clear is you disagree with me quite a bit on the depth of the clay field Federer (and maybe Djokovic) have faced, and that previous eras, have faced, but I am genuinely curious where exactly do you rank those 2 guys on clay. Since you never specifically stated that, but all the round around discussion has me curious now.

 

[mike danny]

2017 Nadal hits more pace and spin on groundstrokes than in 2005. Also superior serve and dominant at FO.
Was 19 yr old Fed better than 31 yr old Fed?

Apples and oranges comparison. Nadal blossomed earlier than Fed.

2017 Nadal hits with more power because he has to since his peak movement declined. 2005 Nadal doesn't need to do that. He would just frustrate Thiem into oblivion.

Very good win for Thiem today, but let's not overrate the guy. He would be eaten alive by 2005 Nadal on clay just like everyone else back then.

 

[mike danny]

2005 Nadal won significantly lower percentage of service points on clay than 2017 Nadal. 2nd serve MUCH better in 2017.
Also, Nadal won higher percentage of points on return in 2017 as well!

Again, why should this matter, since 2005 Nadal wasn't serve-dependent? His ground game was his main weapon.

Of course 2017 Nadal should have a better serve, since he has to compensate somehow for his worse movement.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Under the old standards of the game (before the recent trend to a much older game) Federer was actually a quite late bloomer, believe it or not. Relative to Nadal and even Djokovic he definitely was. As well as those you mentioned, and probably Agassi.

A little late, 1-2 years if 2001 (20 years) is the expected date. Was on a bit slow but steady upward trend until he got hangover after winning Hamburg 02 and then Carter's death hit him so some time to reassess himself, basically took an extra year.

 

[mike danny]

Under the old standards of the game (before the recent trend to a much older game) Federer was actually a quite late bloomer, believe it or not. Relative to Nadal and even Djokovic he definitely was. As well as those you mentioned, and probably Agassi.

Yeah, but he still won his first slam at nearly 22. Nowadays, the 22 year olds suck and are worse physically than the 30+ year olds, which shouldn't be happening.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

@AnOctorokForDinner, the only thing that is clear is you disagree with me quite a bit on the depth of the clay field Federer (and maybe Djokovic) have faced, and that previous eras, have faced, but I am genuinely curious where exactly do you rank those 2 guys on clay. Since you never specifically stated that, but all the round around discussion has me curious now.

I'm not sure really, the Vilas-Courier-Bruguera-Federer-Djokovic group is quite a mess. Definitely below the firmly ordered top 5, which is Nadal-Borg-Lendl-Wilander-Kuerten, and above all other 1 time RG winners (except Vilas, who won USO on clay). Of course, I'm only talking Open era, there is no good comparison with the pre-Open clay scene..

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Again, why should this matter, since 2005 Nadal wasn't serve-dependent? His ground game was his main weapon.

Of course 2017 Nadal should have a better serve, since he has to compensate somehow for his worse movement.

If his ground game was so much better, then wouldn’t the stats indicate that? Fed’s return game clearly declined from 2005-2017. Nadal’s didn’t.

 

[JoelDali]

Clasherer.

 

[mike danny]

If his ground game was so much better, then wouldn’t the stats indicate that? Fed’s return game clearly declined from 2005-2017. Nadal’s didn’t.

Be that as it may, Thiem is still not beating 2005 Nadal, if this is what you're trying to get at.

 

[angrybirds89]

I'm not sure really, the Vilas-Courier-Bruguera-Federer-Djokovic group is quite a mess. Definitely below the firmly ordered top 5, which is Nadal-Borg-Lendl-Wilander-Kuerten, and above all other 1 time RG winners (except Vilas, who won USO on clay). Of course, I'm only talking Open era, there is no good comparison with the pre-Open clay scene..

I actually agree with that. I think Federer and Djokovic are similar in that both could be rated as high as 6th or 7th or as low as 9th, 10th, even 11th, as that group are all fairly interchangeable. One of the few things I am fairly firm on is I am pretty sure I rank Djokovic above Federer (even if only by 1 spot possibly) only since they are roughly the same era and I see them about dead equal at RG and Djokovic clearly ahead in Masters. The only case for Federer over Djokovic are more subtly subjective ones like playing level, facing a slightly stronger Nadal, style, and the 2011 RG match (which are valid points for those who want to go along those lines).

So ironically despite that we seemed to be strongly opposed on some things, our final opinions arent far apart at all.

I do think Courier had the highest peak of peak levels of all those guys, but also the shortest prime. Vilas by contrast IMO has by far the lowest peak of all those, and probably would have losing head to heads with most or all of those (considering many of those in their non peak years would rarely be reaching him), but the most impressive run of longevity and total achievement on the surface. Vilas was falling much easier to prime Borg than Federer and Djokovic were to Nadal, which does not look good on him, plus he was vurnerable to a lot of top clay courters of his time on their good days, even at his best.

 

[mike danny]

I actually agree with that. I think Federer and Djokovic are similar in that both could be rated as high as 6th or 7th or as low as 9th, 10th, even 11th, as that group are all fairly interchangeable. One of the few things I am fairly firm on is I am pretty sure I rank Djokovic above Federer (even if only by 1 spot possibly) only since they are roughly the same era and I see them about dead equal at RG and Djokovic clearly ahead in Masters. The only case for Federer over Djokovic are more subtly subjective ones like playing level, facing a slightly stronger Nadal, style, and the 2011 RG match (which are valid points for those who want to go along those lines).

So ironically despite that we seemed to be strongly opposed on some things, our final opinions arent far apart at all.

I do think Courier had the highest peak of peak levels of all those guys, but also the shortest prime. Vilas by contrast IMO has by far the lowest peak of all those, and probably would have losing head to heads with most or all of those (considering many of those in their non peak years would rarely be reaching him), but the most impressive run of longevity and total achievement on the surface. Vilas was falling much easier to prime Borg than Federer and Djokovic were to Nadal, which does not look good on him, plus he was vurnerable to a lot of top clay courters of his time on their good days, even at his best.

What we can say for sure about Courier, is that he is the best ever American on clay.

 

[angrybirds89]

What we can say for sure about Courier, is that he is the best ever American on clay.

Agreed, and I have a feeling 100 years from now he probably still will be, even if the next great American who wins a lot of grand slams is sure to come at some point, somehow I am guessing he wont be some clay court maestro.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I actually agree with that. I think Federer and Djokovic are similar in that both could be rated as high as 6th or 7th or as low as 9th, 10th, even 11th, as that group are all fairly interchangeable. One of the few things I am fairly firm on is I am pretty sure I rank Djokovic above Federer (even if only by 1 spot possibly) only since they are roughly the same era and I see them about dead equal at RG and Djokovic clearly ahead in Masters. The only case for Federer over Djokovic are more subtly subjective ones like playing level, facing a slightly stronger Nadal, style, and the 2011 RG match (which are valid points for those who want to go along those lines).

So ironically despite that we seemed to be strongly opposed on some things, our final opinions arent far apart at all.

I do think Courier had the highest peak of peak levels of all those guys, but also the shortest prime. Vilas by contrast IMO has by far the lowest peak of all those, and probably would have losing head to heads with most or all of those (considering many of those in their non peak years would rarely be reaching him), but the most impressive run of longevity and total achievement on the surface. Vilas was falling much easier to prime Borg than Federer and Djokovic were to Nadal, which does not look good on him, plus he was vurnerable to a lot of top clay courters of his time on their good days, even at his best.

Yep, I think in similar terms.

I don't deny the clay depth was better in the 90s, just not consistently so given high performance volatility allowing for some nicer draws, examples being 1992 Courier (though he absolutely played amazing regardless, probably the highest peak of the group as you said), and 1996 Kafelnikov (Sampras and Stich doing the dirty work, ha). Most draws were quite stacked indeed. As I said, I could Federer/Djokovic win 2 titles if their peaks are timed fortunately and do not coincide with the strongest years.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Be that as it may, Thiem is still not beating 2005 Nadal, if this is what you're trying to get at.

2005 Nadal is a favorite against any version of Thiem.
So is 2017 Nadal.

 

[duaneeo]

2005 Nadal wasn't fully prime Nadal, but he was as close to his clay prime as he could be.

I think Nadal is that rare player who came exploding right outside the gate at full prime clay force. He won eight titles including his maiden appearance at Roland Garros (beating expected winner Federer and a PED-enhanced Puerta), and four other BO5 finals (beating Ferrero, Gaudio, and two against Coria--including the classic 2005 Rome battle). One can argue the clay competition was greater in 2005 than what Rafa later faced.

 

[angrybirds89]

Yep, I think in similar terms.

I don't deny the clay depth was better in the 90s, just not consistently so given high performance volatility allowing for some nicer draws, examples being 1992 Courier (though he absolutely played amazing regardless, probably the highest peak of the group as you said), and 1996 Kafelnikov (Sampras and Stich doing the dirty work, ha). Most draws were quite stacked indeed. As I said, I could Federer/Djokovic win 2 titles if their peaks are timed fortunately and do not coincide with the strongest years.

That could be true. I would be interested to study more of the 80s and 90s clay draws in depth, particularly those of Courier, Vilas, Lendl, Bruguera. I remember some distinct ones like Courier's 92 RG draw, but overall some of us are probably exagerrating the depth which tends to happen. The past often feels vintage and greener than it really is.

Come to think of it Kafelnikov probably would not be able to win a French and very nearly have won a 2nd French if the clay field were that great. The guy could not even win a Masters on clay (or anywhere).

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

That could be true. I would be interested to study more of the 80s and 90s clay draws in depth, particularly those of Courier, Vilas, Lendl, Bruguera. I remember some distinct ones like Courier's 92 RG draw, but overall some of us are probably exagerrating the depth which tends to happen. The past often feels vintage and greener than it really is.

Come to think of it Kafelnikov probably would not be able to win a French and very nearly have won a 2nd French if the clay field were that great. The guy could not even win a Masters on clay (or anywhere).

Zhenya's draw was Blanco-Johansson-Mantilla-Clavet-Krajicek-Sampras-Stich. Mantilla is only really relevant at his best, which wasn't the case so that's a nice draw to QF. Then comes Krajicek, solid opponent but manageable on clay, and he ended up being the only one to take a set. Sampras and Stich look solid name-wise, but getting into details you see that Pete spilled his guts to overcome better claycourters in his draw (Bruguera, Courier) and had nothing left for the semi, totally hitting the wall after a set. Stich was actually playing well if "un-clay" coming into the final, but choked immensely as much as Denko in that RG SF (and I felt it acceptable to mention him because there was prime/peak Nadal in the final, so he made a respectable warm-up; witnessing that chokery in the actual final would not be pretty at all).

 

[angrybirds89]

Zhenya's draw was Blanco-Johansson-Mantilla-Clavet-Krajicek-Sampras-Stich. Mantilla is only really relevant at his best, which wasn't the case so that's a nice draw to QF. Then comes Krajicek, solid opponent but manageable on clay, and he ended up being the only one to take a set. Sampras and Stich look solid name-wise, but getting into details you see that Pete spilled his guts to overcome better claycourters in his draw (Bruguera, Courier) and had nothing left for the semi, totally hitting the wall after a set. Stich was actually playing well if "un-clay" coming into the final, but choked immensely as much as Denko in that RG SF (and I felt it acceptable to mention him because there was prime/peak Nadal in the final, so he made a respectable warm-up; witnessing that chokery in the actual final would not be pretty at all).

When you look at that draw the first 3 or even 4 rounds were probably a lot harder than anything you get these days, or even in the Federer-Nadal era, but the final rounds are easier, so it is all how you look at I guess. Blanco and Mantilla as some of your first week opponents on clay though are tough for sure though, and do show some of the clay depth I spoke of, but I am not sure that negates facing fast court specialists who arent even playing their best to win. Atlhough this was a case the end part of the draw fell apart through all the upsets, and isnt normally what it would have been which Kafelnikov took full advantage of.

Also Federer or Djokovic would still survive the early part of that draw unless they happened to have a really off day on the wrong day.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Also Federer or Djokovic would still survive the early part of that draw unless they happened to have a really off day on the wrong day.

That's the point really, they are still clearly better claycourters that the typical first week guys and have the endurance not to lose steam if they happened to drop a few sets. You could say Federer caught some residual depth when he faced Gonzo and Moya in the first week of 05 RG and beat them just fine (Hanescu in QF was lulz though).

 

[angrybirds89]

That's the point really, they are still clearly better claycourters that the typical first week guys and have the endurance not to lose steam if they happened to drop a few sets. You could say Federer caught some residual depth when he faced Gonzo and Moya in the first week of 05 RG and beat them just fine (Hanescu in QF was lulz though).

True, it is really more in many of those draws the 4th round-semi stage could be a lot tougher and tough enough to cause more losses for Federer-Djokovic, but that particular draw isnt really a good example of that. Just the significantly stronger long depth of the field that plays out in the earliest rounds, but still would make little difference to players as consistent on all surfaces as Federer/Djokovic.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Thiem has the firepower yes, but he's hitting old Nadal off the court. Huge difference between present day Nadal and 2005 Nadal as anybody who seen 2005 Nadal will attest to.

Typical nostalgia argument.
NO STATS demonstrate the superiority of 2005 Nadal to 2017 Nadal (whom Thiem also hit off the court in Rome).
2005 Nadal had a MUCH weaker second serve that made his game a liability off clay.
Please compare the stats on the ATP website:
2005 on clay:
https://www.atptour.com/en/players/rafael-nadal/n409/player-stats?year=2005&surfaceType=clay
2017 on clay
https://www.atptour.com/en/players/rafael-nadal/n409/player-stats?year=2017&surfaceType=clay
Key stat:
Service games won (on clay):
Nadal 2005: 84%
Nadal 2017 88%
That’s a huge difference.
Was he faster in 2005 than in 2017? Sure. But his groundstrokes are measurably faster and with more RPM in 2017.

For the record, I am NOT saying that Thiem would beat 2005 Nadal in a given match. Nadal is the unrivaled GOAT on clay, but he CAN be beaten as Thiem and Djokovic have demonstrated.
Return games won identical in 2005 and 2017.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Which stalwart of the 1HBH and speaker of Deutsch will end up with a better clay resume when all is said and done?

Here are where their relative winning percentages stand on the clay at the moment:

https://www.atptour.com/en/performance-zone/win-loss-index/career/clay/all/

Fed can blame Nadal for taking away several FO titles, but Thiem wasn't competing in that era either, and Rafa has beaten Thiem in the last two FOs at late stages.

Fed has 11 career clay titles (but obviously several of the highest echelon). Thiem has 8 and hopefully will start winning the big titles soon on the dirt.

Thiem MAY emerge as a major force on clay in the post Rafa landscape, but no guarantees that Zverev, Tsitsipas, FAA, or other guys won't stop him.

I'm liking that top 5 on clay as I read down the list on the link: Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Rosewall, Vilas. Seems like a solid top 5. Fed at #15 makes one realize just how many good clay courters there were out there over the course of the last 40-50 years, and I'd rate all of the guys above him above him on clay.

I do think Thiem will end up with more titles on clay than Fed, but will his clay win percentage go up and will he gain the consistency he needs to inch up in that category, I doubt it. We'll see.

 

[mika1979]

Which stalwart of the 1HBH and speaker of Deutsch will end up with a better clay resume when all is said and done?

Here are where their relative winning percentages stand on the clay at the moment:

https://www.atptour.com/en/performance-zone/win-loss-index/career/clay/all/

Fed can blame Nadal for taking away several FO titles, but Thiem wasn't competing in that era either, and Rafa has beaten Thiem in the last two FOs at late stages.

Fed has 11 career clay titles (but obviously several of the highest echelon). Thiem has 8 and hopefully will start winning the big titles soon on the dirt.

Thiem MAY emerge as a major force on clay in the post Rafa landscape, but no guarantees that Zverev, Tsitsipas, FAA, or other guys won't stop him.

I love how Thiem is a lock for a grand slam and he hasnt won any big clay title yet. Just because he has a one hander doesnt make him the next federer.