Where does Federer rank in open era claycourters?

[GameSampras]

I hope this is a serious discussion thread and not just a veiled place to bash Federer...lets see who Sampras lost to before we start bashing Federer's draws. BTW, most people prior to this year's French would have said that Soderling was wore than Ancic, Gonzalez or Monfis and that Nadal had an easy draw...it doesn't always work out that way, especially at the French.

Who Sampras lost to at the French in his prime years 92-96. Pretty dang good clay courters. Bruguera, Andre, Courier, Kafelnikov just to name a few. A few of which are greater than Roger on clay. All RG winners. And than you got Medvedev in 99. A guy with a quite a few clay court masters titles, Of course he has some bad losses though.. But some of his losses were to some greats, especially in his earlier years when he was gunning for the french more

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

I hope this is a serious discussion thread and not just a veiled place to bash Federer...lets see who Sampras lost to before we start bashing Federer's draws. BTW, most people prior to this year's French would have said that Soderling was wore than Ancic, Gonzalez or Monfis and that Nadal had an easy draw...it doesn't always work out that way, especially at the French.

Pete's prime on clay 92-96.

92- Lost to Agassi in the quarters
93- Lost to eventual champ Bruguera in the quarters
94- Lost to 2 champ Courier in the quarters
95- Yeah bad loss in the first round
96- Lost to eventual champ Kafelnikov in the semis beat Courier in the quarters

Hardly losing to bums now was it?

Federer's quarter final opponents.

05- Hanescu
06- Ancic
07- Robredo
08- Monflis

See the diffrence.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Pete's prime on clay 92-96.

92- Lost to Agassi in the quarters
93- Lost to eventual champ Bruguera in the quarters
94- Lost to 2 champ Courier in the quarters
95- Yeah bad loss in the first round
96- Lost to eventual champ Kafelnikov in the semis beat Courier in the quarters

Hardly losing to bums now was it?

Federer's quarter final opponents.

05- Hanescu
06- Ancic
07- Robredo
08- Monflis

See the diffrence.

There might be a small difference...But Roger never had any bad loses in slams that Pete had in 95 (prime time that is)

 

[akv89]

1st tier: Borg and Nadal

2nd tier: Lendl, Wilander, Vilas

3rd tier: Kuerten

4th tier: Federer, Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Fererro

So somewhere around top 6-10

 

[Enigma_87]

1.Borg
2.Nadal
3.Lendl
4.Kuerten
5.Wilander
6.Vilas
7.Courier
8.Federer
9.Bruguera
10.Muster
(10)=.Ferrero


So 8th. Borg and Nadal are obvious, Lendl, Wilander and Guga virtually nothing separates them. Vilas was a great claycourter and is real close 6th.

Federer if he wins one more French would be above Courier.

Bruguera won 2 FO's but was owned by Muster and won just 2 masters and only 2 MS f's as well. Federer has 5 MS(2 wins over Nadal in finals) and multiple Rome, Hamburg and MC finals(lost to Nadal).

Muster has numerous clay titles, has 1 more MS final than Roger, but has only 1 French final and was big underachiever at the most important clay tournament. Ferrero is on par with him, may be above, may be just below - he has 1 FO final more, and won a MS shield beating Kuerten, has a 2-2 H2H against Guga on clay and has beaten Nada on clay as well(08 MS).


Movers: Nadal needs 2 FO's to move into the 1st spot. Federer needs 1 Fo to surpass Courier and 2 to surpass Vilas. Ferrero needs 1 FO to surpass Bruguera and 1 clay MS to surpass Muster.

1st tier: Borg and Nadal

2nd tier: Lendl, Wilander, Vilas

3rd tier: Kuerten

4th tier: Federer, Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Fererro

So somewhere around top 6-10

Have to disagree with Kuerten being 3rd tier.I'd swap him with Vilas easily. Vilas has 2 CC slams(only one of them FO, the other was US played on clay). Vilas has only 2 wins over Borg - first and last meeting. He accumulated a lot of CC titles alright, but has only 3 finals, not like you could blame his FO misfortunes only to Borg(lost only twice to him). With the other part - agree full heartedly.

 

[akv89]

1

Have to disagree with Kuerten being 3rd tier.I'd swap him with Vilas easily. Vilas has 2 CC slams(only one of them FO, the other was US played on clay). Vilas has only 2 wins over Borg - first and last meeting. He accumulated a lot of CC titles alright, but has only 3 finals, not like you could blame his FO misfortunes only to Borg(lost only twice to him). With the other part - agree full heartedly.

Perhaps. I would degrade Vilas but I wouldn't put Kuerten in the same league as Wilander and Lendl.

 

[P_Agony]

Whilst Federer has better longevity on clay Ferrero's peak shines brighter imo. They both have 1 French but the fact that Roger has never won Monte Carlo or Rome hurts him imo.

And Ferrero has not won Hamburg 4 times nor Madrid on clay. I don't think Ferrero beat the COAT 2 times on clay. If Ferrero was so great why wasn't he facing Nadal in all those FO finals, MC finals, Rome finals, etc.

Federer is clearly above Ferrero.

Edit: Add to that their H2H on clay - Federer leads 3-0. Yawn.

 

[Enigma_87]

Perhaps. I would degrade Vilas but I wouldn't put Kuerten in the same league as Wilander and Lendl.

fair point

 

[dincuss]

imo 11th.

1.Borg
2.Nadal
3.Lendl
4.Wilander
4.Kuerten
6.Vilas
7.Muster
8.Courier
9.Brugeura
10.Federer
11.Ferrero

I think this would be better. IMO
Kuerten and Wilander should be tied for 4/5th. also IMO

 

[IvanAndreevich]

So nice to see all the Sampras lovers and Federer haters trying to undermine Fed's achievements on clay.

 

[drwood]

Pete's prime on clay 92-96.

92- Lost to Agassi in the quarters
93- Lost to eventual champ Bruguera in the quarters
94- Lost to 2 champ Courier in the quarters
95- Yeah bad loss in the first round
96- Lost to eventual champ Kafelnikov in the semis beat Courier in the quarters

Hardly losing to bums now was it?

Federer's quarter final opponents.

05- Hanescu
06- Ancic
07- Robredo
08- Monflis

See the diffrence.

Convenient how you phrase the years to exclude Pete's subpar losses -- 1992 was not a Sampras peak year -- he didn't win a Slam, and was dominated by Ivanisevic at Wimbledon that year.

Looking at Sampras peak years (93-00) = years he won at least one major, his losses at the French:
1. 93 - Bruguera in Q
2. 94 - Courier in Q (this was Sampras' best clay court year)
3. 95 - Gilbert Schaller (LOL!!!) in 1st round!!
4. 96 - Smoked by Kafelnikov in the semis -- the worst clay court player to win the french in the past 30 years, but Sampras did beat Courier to get this far
5. 97 - 3rd round - Magnus Norman (decent player -- future finalist at French, but no slams)
6. 98 - 2nd rd -- to the immortal Ramon Delgado in straight sets (LOL)
7. 99 - 2nd rd - to Medvedev, who had never even made a slam semi before
8. 00 - 1st rd - to Phillippousis -- the clay court legend with no slams

Look -- don't try to build Sampras' clay court failures by trying to tear down Federer. Any one of these draws from 97-00 would have been considered easy, except Sampras flamed out.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

1. Borg
2. Nadal
3. Kuerten
4. Lendl
5. Wilander
6. Vilas
7. Courier
8. Muster
9. Federer
10. Bruguera
11. Ferrero
12. Moya
13. Corretja
14. Agassi
15. Costa

Would be mine. So I would say 9th. Ferrero in no way deserves to rank over Federer on clay. At their peaks they are comparable, but Ferrero had a short peak due to injury and didnt achieve nearly enough to be over Federer on clay.

some how you rank ferrero moya and corretja above agassi... should we review agassi's clay achievements?

Semi 88
Runner 90
Runner 91
Winner 99

and 6 other clay titles..

 

[Gaudio2004]

Where would Nadal rank in the top 10 clay courters?

Not even in the top 5.

 

[drwood]

some how you rank ferrero moya and corretja above agassi... should we review agassi's clay achievements?

Yeah, people seem to overlook Agassi on clay. Some of his achievements:
1. 99 French open champ
2. 3-time French finalist (90, 91, 99)
3. Semis in 88 and 92 -- lost to champ both times (Wilander, Courier)
4. Quarters in 2001, 2002 and 2003
5. Won Rome in 2002, 13 yrs (!!) after being finalist in 1989

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Yeah, people seem to overlook Agassi on clay. Some of his achievements:
1. 99 French open champ
2. 3-time French finalist (90, 91, 99)
3. Semis in 88 and 92 -- lost to champ both times (Wilander, Courier)
4. Quarters in 2001, 2002 and 2003
5. Won Rome in 2002, 13 yrs (!!) after being finalist in 1989

precisely... when you rank someone you have to take acount to what he did, not how good he looked on a certain surface...how natural that surface was for him...

sure... ferrero\moya\corretja were "specialists" in the dirt... still they did less than agassi!

 

[フェデラー]

Would sampras be even in the top 25 clay courters of all time?? I dont think so. That in and of itself ruins his goat claim.

 

[drwood]

Would sampras be even in the top 25 clay courters of all time?? I dont think so. That in and of itself ruins his goat claim.

No, he wouldn't...probably not even top 50 since he never even made a French final and made only one semi. However, I still think he's the second greatest player ever to Federer -- in 3-4 yrs, he may fall behind Nadal as well.

 

[GameSampras]

No, he wouldn't...probably not even top 50 since he never even made a French final and made only one semi. However, I still think he's the second greatest player ever to Federer -- in 3-4 yrs, he may fall behind Nadal as well.

Whats with this Nadal GOAT talk? Lets see the guy finish a season healthy first. He cant even do that. When was the last time Nadal has actually been injury free the entire season? 2-3 years ago? For christ sakes

 

[Al Czervik]

Well god guys.. You get 4 SHOTS against 1 player 4 YEARS IN A ROW, I think you should eventually know what to expect in the finals from Nadal. Fed never and still has never really gotten this taken care of against Nadal.. And consequently, it has carried over into all surfaces now, not just clay. THATS WHY, I can understand why people will doubt things with Fed. I believe if you gave Guga, Bruguera, Muster, Lendl, Borg, WIlander, 4 SHOTS at Nadal, they would have managed 1 win out of the 4 anyways.

Fed should have managed 1 if he was that great. I mean COME ON! He had time to prepare I would say for 1 guy for 4 years for 4 different tries

Those 4 losses are still better than anything ape man put together at RG.

 

[rod99]

Yeah, people seem to overlook Agassi on clay. Some of his achievements:
1. 99 French open champ
2. 3-time French finalist (90, 91, 99)
3. Semis in 88 and 92 -- lost to champ both times (Wilander, Courier)
4. Quarters in 2001, 2002 and 2003
5. Won Rome in 2002, 13 yrs (!!) after being finalist in 1989

he also got to the quarters in '95, losing to kafelnikov after he injured his hip in the match, which restricted his movement.

 

[drwood]

Whats with this Nadal GOAT talk? Lets see the guy finish a season healthy first. He cant even do that. When was the last time Nadal has actually been injury free the entire season? 2-3 years ago? For christ sakes

First of all, the name of Jesus Christ is to be praised and not cursed. Second, its not out of the realm of possibility for Nadal to surpass Sampras. I remember in the early 90s when people thought there was no way Sampras would ever surpass Lendl, and he ended up doing so easily.

 

[grafrules]

some how you rank ferrero moya and corretja above agassi... should we review agassi's clay achievements?

Semi 88
Runner 90
Runner 91
Winner 99

and 6 other clay titles..

Well Ferrero definitely rates over Agassi on clay IMO. Agassi's only edge is 1 more French Open final but they have the same #1 of French Open titles (1 each), and Ferrero has 3 Masters titles on clay to Agassi's 1. Ferrero also has 8 total titles on the surface to Agassi's 7 although that isnt any significant. Ferrero has won the prestigious Monte Carlo twice which Agassi never reached the final in. Both have won Rome once. The superior performance of Ferrero in Masters events is the big difference for me. If Agassi had a 2nd French Open title which Ferrero doesnt it would probably be different but isnt the case of course. Also that Ferrero in 2002-2003 was considered by almost everyone the best clay courter in the World despite his upset loss in the French Open final of 2003. Was there ever a point Agassi was considered the best in the World on clay? Lendl was considered that up until 1990 even though he skipped the French tha year. Courier was considered that from 1991-1993. Kuerten was considered the best clay courter in the World from 1999-2001 even though Agassi won the French in a big upset in 1999.

Now while Ferrero over Agassi is an easy call IMO, Moya and Corretja are less so. Moya's French Open performance is clearly below Agassi's overall. At the same time both have 1 title each there. However Moya has won both Monte Carlo and Rome in his career, unlike Agassi. Moya also has 16 career titles on clay, an amazing # and double Agassi's. Moya whooped Kuerten 6-0, 6-2 in Kuerten's prime on clay. This is a closer call than Agassi vs Ferrero but I sided with Moya by a hair. Again if Agassi had a 2nd French Open title it would be different.

Now there is Corretja. Actually breaking it down closer Corretja perhaps shouldnt be over Agassi. He does not have a French Open title, two finals which is one less than Agassi. He also has only 1 Masters title like Agassi, although he has 4 Masters finals and better overall performance in them than Agassi. He does have 10 titles on clay to Agassi's 7 too. Still probably Agassi should be over Corretja without a French Open title to his name.

Alot of it just goes down to my personal feeling too. I do feel Ferrero, Moya, and Corretja are the slightly better clay courters. When 1 of them played Agassi on clay, even if it was Moya or Corretja in the late 90s, I always felt that Agassi would probably lose. That isnt to say he couldnt win but it wasnt what I expected would happen.

 

[pmerk34]

No, he wouldn't...probably not even top 50 since he never even made a French final and made only one semi. However, I still think he's the second greatest player ever to Federer -- in 3-4 yrs, he may fall behind Nadal as well.

Nadal had better start winning US Opens and 3 more Wimbys to pass Pete as GOAT status.

 

[GameSampras]

First of all, the name of Jesus Christ is to be praised and not cursed. Second, its not out of the realm of possibility for Nadal to surpass Sampras. I remember in the early 90s when people thought there was no way Sampras would ever surpass Lendl, and he ended up doing so easily.

Thats the key point.. EASILY!!! Nothing comes easily for Nadal.. Every win he has to bust his butt to get. Thus in the long run it only hurts his longevity on winning majors.


Its pretty much out of the realm of possibility. Usually the guys with longevity on top and big career achivements like a ton of slams, go to guys who can make it easy on themselves with either a fluid game not taxing on the body (Federer).. or a guy with a serve that could rarely be broke thus making it easy to win matches (Sampras) Not a grinder like Nadal who cant win points easily.


Whats out of the realm of possibility, is Nadal even staying healthy for a season.. Much less be a candidate for GOAT

 

[pmerk34]

Thats the key point.. EASILY!!! Nothing comes easily for Nadal.. Every win he has to bust his butt to get. Thus in the long run it only hurts his longevity on winning majors.


Its pretty much out of the realm of possibility. Usually the guys with longevity on top and big career achivements like a ton of slams, go to guys who can make it easy on themselves with either a fluid game not taxing on the body (Federer).. or a guy with a serve that could rarely be broke thus making it easy to win matches (Sampras) Not a grinder like Nadal who cant win points easily.


Whats out of the realm of possibility, is Nadal even staying healthy for a season.. Much less be a candidate for GOAT

Many of Nadals wins at the French Open have been short and sweet.

 

[GameSampras]

Many of Nadals wins at the French Open have been short and sweet.

Yea... But slams on one surface done mean jack diddly when discussing GOAT candidacy

 

[sanchino]

1.Borg
2.Lendl
3.Vilas
4.Wilander
5.Kuerten
6.Nadal
7.Muster
8.Connors
9.Federer

 

[fed_rulz]

1.Borg
2.Lendl
3.Vilas
4.Wilander
5.Kuerten
6.Nadal
7.Muster
8.Connors
9.Federer

you're joking right, putting nadal at 6? care to explain your rationale?

 

[sanchino]

you're joking right, putting nadal at 6? care to explain your rationale?

I think he could be a bit higher, but....not much......I don't think his clay competition to this point has been as tough as those that I ranked above had to face in their individual era's.....

I forgot to name one ahead of Federer, and maybe even a notch or so higher......

Ilie Nastase

 

[GameSampras]

I think he could be a bit higher, but....not much......I don't think his clay competition to this point has been as tough as those that I ranked above had to face in their individual era's.....

I forgot to name one ahead of Federer, and maybe even a notch or so higher......

Ilie Nastase

You do make a good point.. No doubt Nadal has proven to be one of the most dominant forces on clay.. But surely hasnt dealt with an overrall deep talented clay court field which would equate tougher draws for Nadal to get through to win an RG title such as in the 80s and early 90s.


Outside of Djoker and Fed, I wouldnt hang my hat on any other good clay court players since 05 in this era. None at all

 

[grafrules]

1.Borg
2.Lendl
3.Vilas
4.Wilander
5.Kuerten
6.Nadal
7.Muster
8.Connors
9.Federer

Anyone who puts Nadal at #6 loses any credability. Also Vilas, Borg's longtime pigeon on clay at #3!?! That is a good one. Federer is many times more competitive with Nadal on clay than Vilas was with Borg which gives you an idea how lopsided it was. Vilas is also somehow over Wilander who he couldnt even beat in the French Open final as a 17 year old kid. That is another classic. Also Connors at #8, LOL! Funniest list ever.

 

[akv89]

You do make a good point.. No doubt Nadal has proven to be one of the most dominant forces on clay.. But surely hasnt dealt with an overrall deep talented clay court field which would equate tougher draws for Nadal to get through to win an RG title such as in the 80s and early 90s.


Outside of Djoker and Fed, I wouldnt hang my hate on any other good clay court players since 05 in this era. None at all

This argument suffers from the same issues related to any weak era theory: who's to say that it isn't Nadal who is so good that he essentially makes everyone else look bad on clay. The rest of the good clay courters in the field (Federer, Djokovic, Davydenko, Nalbandian when he was in the top 5, Robredo, Ferrer) have been consistently making it deep into the tournaments only to end up losing to each other, or (more often) to Nadal. So it's not as if Nadal is the only one performing consistently on clay.

 

[NamRanger]

Fed has 4 RG finals, but still only has 1 RG title to his resume... Yea yea I know.. Nadal. But he was DESTROYED by Nadal for 4 years. These matches didnt exactly go right down to the wire.

Federer was destroyed in one match on clay, FO 2008 final. That's it. Other then that, pretty sure Federer has actually beaten Nadal a few times and has kept it close in the majority of their matches.

 

[okdude1992]

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

bahahaha you put nadal at 8th? behind courier? really?
to OP:
1. Borg
2. Nadal
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Vilas
7. Courier
8. Federer
9. Muster
10. Bruguera
11. Agassi
12. Ferrero
13. Moya
14. Corretja
15. Costa
i agree almost entirely with graf rules as you can probably see. it was hard for me but i picked lendl over guga alhough without his injuries i believe guga would have easily been higher on the list. choose agassi over ferrero because he was in more finals

 

[sanchino]

Anyone who puts Nadal at #6 loses any credability. Also Vilas, Borg's longtime pigeon on clay at #3!?! That is a good one. Federer is many times more competitive with Nadal on clay than Vilas was with Borg which gives you an idea how lopsided it was. Vilas is also somehow over Wilander who he couldnt even beat in the French Open final as a 17 year old kid. That is another classic. Also Connors at #8, LOL! Funniest list ever.

not all clay court events were/are at slams!......so, if you are aware of all their histories against one another maybe you would have been more reasonable in your disagreement....such as......

Connors had a fine record on clay, just refused to play the French for 4 or 5 years

Vilas beat connors on "American" clay at US Open

Nadal's loos this year at the French wan an enbarasment!.....I don't buy into all that bad knee crap!!.....just excuses!

 

[drwood]

Well Ferrero definitely rates over Agassi on clay IMO. Agassi's only edge is 1 more French Open final but they have the same #1 of French Open titles (1 each), and Ferrero has 3 Masters titles on clay to Agassi's 1. Ferrero also has 8 total titles on the surface to Agassi's 7 although that isnt any significant. Ferrero has won the prestigious Monte Carlo twice which Agassi never reached the final in. Both have won Rome once. The superior performance of Ferrero in Masters events is the big difference for me. If Agassi had a 2nd French Open title which Ferrero doesnt it would probably be different but isnt the case of course. Also that Ferrero in 2002-2003 was considered by almost everyone the best clay courter in the World despite his upset loss in the French Open final of 2003. Was there ever a point Agassi was considered the best in the World on clay? Lendl was considered that up until 1990 even though he skipped the French tha year. Courier was considered that from 1991-1993. Kuerten was considered the best clay courter in the World from 1999-2001 even though Agassi won the French in a big upset in 1999.

There is definitely more than just 1 French final separating Fererro and Agassi. Agassi has also made at least the semis of the French more times (5 vs. 4). Also how many French Open quarters has Fererro made...is it anything close to the 9 that Agassi made (88,90,91,92,95,99,01,02,03)?

You can't just say Fererro had a few more Masters titles and discount the long-term excellence of Agassi...its not even close! Especially when, even in this "weakened" clay court era that the Federer haters like to mention, Fererro isnt even in the discussion any longer about being a threat to win at the French...he hasn't even gotten out of the third round since 2003! If Fererro comes back to start being a threat again at the French, then this discussion has some new life, but otherwise, there's just no way.

 

[JeMar]

imo 11th.

1.Borg
2.Nadal
3.Lendl
4.Wilander
5.Kuerten
6.Vilas
7.Muster
8.Courier
9.Brugeura
10.Ferrero
11.Federer

Not a bad list, but Federer definitely belongs above Ferrero.

 

[sanchino]

Anyone who puts Nadal at #6 loses any credability. Also Vilas, Borg's longtime pigeon on clay at #3!?! That is a good one. Federer is many times more competitive with Nadal on clay than Vilas was with Borg which gives you an idea how lopsided it was. Vilas is also somehow over Wilander who he couldnt even beat in the French Open final as a 17 year old kid. That is another classic. Also Connors at #8, LOL! Funniest list ever.

also,.....anybody that is going to take my opinions to task, should have better "credability" than to think most anybody cares about Steffi Graff or any of them other moonballers she played against!

 

[フェデラー]

Here is my list.

Bjorn Borg #1
Rafa Nadal #2
Ivan Lendl #3
Mats Vilander #4
Guga Kuerten #5
Sergi Bruguera #6
Jim Courier #7
Roger Federer #8
Guillermo Vilas #9
Thomas Muster #10

 

[bruce38]

1.Borg
2.Nadal
3.Kuerten
4.Lendl
5.Wilander
6.Federer
7.Muster
8.Vilas
9.Courier
10.Brugeura
11.Ferrero

 

[grafrules]

There is definitely more than just 1 French final separating Fererro and Agassi. Agassi has also made at least the semis of the French more times (5 vs. 4). Also how many French Open quarters has Fererro made...is it anything close to the 9 that Agassi made (88,90,91,92,95,99,01,02,03)?

You can't just say Fererro had a few more Masters titles and discount the long-term excellence of Agassi...its not even close! Especially when, even in this "weakened" clay court era that the Federer haters like to mention, Fererro isnt even in the discussion any longer about being a threat to win at the French...he hasn't even gotten out of the third round since 2003! If Fererro comes back to start being a threat again at the French, then this discussion has some new life, but otherwise, there's just no way.

Sorry but Monte Carlo titles on clay > French Open quarterfinals. Ferrero has beaten prime Kuerten and prime Nadal (way past his own prime) on clay too, what is Agassi's biggest ever win on clay? Yes Agassi had more longevity on clay but "long term excellence"!?! Agassi did almost diddly squat on clay between the 92 French and 99 French, that is hardly long term excellence. Agassi didnt perform that much on clay outside the French Open compared to someone like Ferrero especialy, ones ranking on a surface like hard courts or clay cant be simply based on their performance at that particular slam alone. Like I said if Agassi actually had an additional title to Ferrero at the French, or a bigger edge than 1 more final (1 more total semifinal too) than that would be 1 thing but he doesnt. Both at their peaks Ferrero was simply the better clay courter. Agassi never played tennis on clay superior to Ferrero of 2001-2003.

As for competition Agassi reached the French Open final in 1990 with the benefit of Lendl skipping the French Open, you know the slam where 30 year old longtime Lendl doormat Andres Gomez was the victor. 2 of his French Open finals were 1990-1991 which were weaker years as the old gaurd on clay were aging and fading away (Wilander, Lendl) and the next generation great courters other than maybe Courier were still on the horizon (Muster, Bruguera). Feel free to copy his draws to the finals both years if you wish. Ferrero on the other hand peaked in the early 2000s when the clay court field actually was very strong, much stronger than the weak clay court field Nadal and Federer face now. Ferrero had the misfortune to face Kuerten at his peak in 2000-2001, Moya, Costa, Corretja, Kafelnikov, all at their best as well around then.

I am not a Federer hater, just because I dont rate Federer top 5 in the Open Era on clay or something ridiculous like that doesnt mean I hate him. Federer doesnt belong any higher than bottom top 10 range in the Open Era on clay were most of us are putting him, just as Agassi belongs in only bottom top 15 range.

 

[corners]

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

A lot different than most lists in this thread. But I watched a lot of tennis in the 80s and 90s and believe that some of the greats of that era would have been crushed by Federer on clay - namely Lendl and Wilander - I don't believe either of those guys did a single thing better than Federer, even on dirt.

Kuerten I put above Fed due to his RG titles and on the strength of his demolition of Roger there in 2005.

Honestly, I would put money on Federer over Borg in best of 5 at RG in some alternate universe where all things are somehow equal in terms of equipment. But without knowing the results of that match, Borg is clearly a close second on his peerless claycourt record.

 

[ubermeyer]

1. Borg
2. Gaudio
3. Federer

just kidding...

 

[federerfanatic]

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

 

[Zimbo]

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

A lot different than most lists in this thread. But I watched a lot of tennis in the 80s and 90s and believe that some of the greats of that era would have been crushed by Federer on clay - namely Lendl and Wilander - I don't believe either of those guys did a single thing better than Federer, even on dirt.

Kuerten I put above Fed due to his RG titles and on the strength of his demolition of Roger there in 2005.

Honestly, I would put money on Federer over Borg in best of 5 at RG in some alternate universe where all things are somehow equal in terms of equipment. But without knowing the results of that match, Borg is clearly a close second on his peerless claycourt record.

I agree with you that Fed would beat guys like Lendl, Wilander, and Borg. But don't forget you can't compare generations. Fed playing with a wood or early graphite stick without his hybrid string would be playing a different game then the one we know today. You can only compare accomplishments. Thus Fed is definitely behind Lendl and Wilander.

 

[sanchino]

Everybody say my list.......agree or disagree....but, I amended my list and said I MIGHT put Nadal a spot or so higher, and I indicated I forgot someone


ILIE NASTASE

I can't understand how this man's name keeps comong up though........."Bruguera"

In my opinion, the most overated lucky slam winner of all open era

 

[pame]

Federer draws up and till the final where he loses to Nadal have been pretty crap.

Well since they're drawn from the same people Nadal has to play, then I guess Nadal's draws up to the final where he meets Federer have been pretty crap too. There isn't one ATP tour for Fed, and a different one for Nadal

 

[sanchino]

Having checked on some facts, I am mrre convinced than ever that "Sergi Bruguera" is the most all time over decorated Grand Slam Champion and realizing how painful the memories are of those boring wins over the likes of Courier and a win over Chang........that indeed ROGER FEDERER just on the strength of solid performances before his ROLAND GAROS victory....moves up quite a bit!

Forgive me, I forgot I WANTED to forget "SERGI BRUGUERA"

 

[grafrules]

Wrong thread.

 

[sanchino]

Wrong thread.

you are in the wrong thread........go with your ****s!