Where does Federer rank on clay in open era?

[CentreCourt]

It is not ATG, it is just Open Era.

Djokovic is the #2 hard courter of the Open Era after only Fed and Nadal is probably top 5, and on grass all 3 of Djokovic, Murray, Nadal might make top 10. So it is not like there arent people from this era ranking high in the Open Era on other surfaces too.

Where this era is weak is depth, but it has ATGs on all surfaces.

The only era that counts is Open Era. Winning Wimbledon 9 times in 1843 when it was a bit of fun between rich old toffs is not sport.

I don't disagree they are all top of the tree in ability, I'm just pointing out a hypocrisy that is raised to discredit one which is now being used to prop up the other.

I don't believe any of them can be truly assessed on clay because Nadal is so far ahead.

 

[hothanded]

The only era that counts is Open Era. Winning Wimbledon 9 times in 1843 when it was a bit of fun between rich old toffs is not sport.

I don't disagree they are all top of the tree in ability, I'm just pointing out a hypocrisy that is raised to discredit one which is now being used to prop up the other.

I don't believe any of them can be truly assessed on clay because Nadal is so far ahead.

Obviously players like Rod Laver, Pancho Gonzales, Ken Rosewall matter so I cant agree only Open Era matters. It is hard to dispute Ken Rosewall is #3 all time on clay for instance. I see your point though.

 

[JoelSandwich]

Ordering Lendl kuerten and wilander is tough

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Its not an easy comparison, as they were both clearly the second best clay courters for several years in their prime. Only one man stood in their way to also dominate clay in their prime, although it wasnt Fedovic best surface. Djokovic has a better H2H vs Rafa, and has won more clay Masters, but he also played Rafa a lot more in Rafas weaker clay-years. Fedovic are both clearly inferior to prime-Rafa on clay, but they were both clearly superior to the rest of the field in their peak years. Their H2H is 4-3 Djok, and 1-1 at FO, Federer beating peak-Djoker in 2011, so pretty even.

Their Clay h2h is 4-4. Fed has beaten Novak three times in MC and Novak has beaten Fed three times in Rome.

 

[hothanded]

Its not an easy comparison, as they were both clearly the second best clay courters for several years in their prime. Only one man stood in their way to also dominate clay in their prime, although it wasnt Fedovic best surface. Djokovic has a better H2H vs Rafa, and has won more clay Masters, but he also played Rafa a lot more in Rafas weaker clay-years. Fedovic are both clearly inferior to prime-Rafa on clay, but they were both clearly superior to the rest of the field in their peak years. Their H2H is 4-3 Djok, and 1-1 at FO, Federer beating peak-Djoker in 2011, so pretty even.

I think Djokovic is definitely over Federer as his Masters performance is fuller, stronger, and more complete. 2 more Masters, but more importantly all the current Masters (you cant really count Hamburg when the last time it was played was when Djokovic was only 20). Federer not winning Rome or Monte Carlo even once is a big mark against him on clay. Their RG careers are a virtual tie, as is their head to head as you noted. Add to Djokovic's significantly superior Masters performance, his far superior performance vs Nadal on clay, and it is a clear win for Djokovic. I dont think he is very far ahead of Federer on clay, just clearly ahead, and when it comes to many others- Muster, Bruguera, Vilas, they could easily be argued ahead of or behind both Djokovic and Federer on clay, but it is just clear Djokovic has to be ahead of Federer, even if possibly only by 1 or 2 spots. I dont see any case for Federer being ahead really.

 

[RF-18]

funny how h2h matters now when when we compare djoko vs fed on clay, people mentioning their 2011 meeting. just LOL!

Djokovic h2h vs fed in HC slams 6-4. Djokovic better than Fed on HCs.

Wimbledon h2h: 2-1 Djokovic. Djokovic > Federer on grass

 

[Jonas78]

I think Djokovic is definitely over Federer as his Masters performance is fuller, stronger, and more complete. 2 more Masters, but more importantly all the current Masters (you cant really count Hamburg when the last time it was played was when Djokovic was only 20). Federer not winning Rome or Monte Carlo even once is a big mark against him on clay. Their RG careers are a virtual tie, as is their head to head as you noted. Add to Djokovic's significantly superior Masters performance, his far superior performance vs Nadal on clay, and it is a clear win for Djokovic. I dont think he is very far ahead of Federer on clay, just clearly ahead, and when it comes to many others- Muster, Bruguera, Vilas, they could easily be argued ahead of or behind both Djokovic and Federer on clay, but it is just clear Djokovic has to be ahead of Federer, even if possibly only by 1 or 2 spots. I dont see any case for Federer being ahead really.

Well again, the problem is that Nadal is the only one standing between them and a bunch of both clay masters and slams. So the question is: Was Claydal of 2011-2016 (Djokos prime) the same as Claydal 2005-2010 (Feds prime)? If not, its not a fair comparison. Taking away Hamburg also leaves Federer with just 2 clay Masters to compete at in his prime, while Djoko has 3 (MC, Rome, Madrid).

 

[RF-18]

Well again, the problem is that Nadal is the only one standing between them and a bunch of both clay masters and slams. So the question is: Was Claydal of 2011-2016 (Djokos prime) the same as Claydal 2005-2010 (Feds prime)? If not, its not a fair comparison. Taking away Hamburg also leaves Federer with just 2 clay Masters to compete at in his prime, while Djoko has 3 (MC, Rome, Madrid).

And Federer didn't win Rome nor MC. Djokovic beat Nadal in both to win his titles.

The fact is Djokovic has the better numbers on clay. Sorry.

 

[Jonas78]

And Federer didn't win Rome nor MC. Djokovic beat Nadal in both to win his titles.

The fact is Djokovic has the better numbers on clay. Sorry.

I am aware he has more titles. But Fed-haters are extremely into level of competition, to justify Djokodals fewer slams. So its a legit question if the Nadal Djoko faced on clay 2011-2016 was the same Federer faced 2005-2010. I would definetly say no.

 

[hothanded]

Well again, the problem is that Nadal is the only one standing between them and a bunch of both clay masters and slams. So the question is: Was Claydal of 2011-2016 (Djokos prime) the same as Claydal 2005-2010 (Feds prime)? If not, its not a fair comparison. Taking away Hamburg also leaves Federer with just 2 clay Masters to compete at in his prime, while Djoko has 3 (MC, Rome, Madrid).

IMO there isnt a huge difference. 2010 is irrelevant as neither Djokovic or Nadal was a factor on clay that year, and in 2009 they were honestly equal factors (Djokovic played Nadal 3 times on clay in Masters semis/finals that year and pushed him each time, Fed beat a tired Nadal who Djokovic softened up for him once, then won RG where Nadal and Djokovic both went out early). I would say comparing Federer 2005-2008 to Djokovic 2011-2014 is the most relevant thing here. Neither played Nadal to win their RG titles, so even that part is nearly irrelevant.

The best ever Nadal on clay was 2008, 2010, 2012. So 1 Federer year, 1 lost year, and 1 Djokovic year. About a tie here.

The next best years of Nadal on clay were probably 2006, 2007, 2011, 2013. 2 Federer years and 2 Djokovic years. Again about tied.

2005, 2009, 2014 were the weakest of the Nadal prime/semi prime years on clay. So 1 Federer year, 1 Federer/Djokovic year, 1 Djokovic year. Again about tied.

So if that is your basis I see no real difference, and it changes nothing about my original stance. It is better to always go with results and achievements first regardless, as those are the most quantifiable ways to compare. Unless there is a very large and visible difference in playing level or competition, which clearly isnt the case here.

Lastly Federer's failure to win Rome/Monte Carlo was largely based on Federer himself, not entirely Nadal. He lost a very winnable final to Mantilla in 2003, went out early to Costa in MC or Rome (forget which) in 2004, lost to Gasquet after having a match point in 2005 which was prior to Nadal aserting any dominance on clay yet, lost to Stepanek in 2008, lost a final of Monte Carlo to his pigeon Wawrinka and went out another year 6-4, 6-1 to a nowhere near prime Wawrinka when Fed himself was at the top of the game. Wasted a match point vs Nadal in the 2006 final with a forehand UE, and yes while this was vs Nadal this has to be accounted to a failure by Federer himself. There are other examples, but Rome imparticular Federer is more at fault, than Nadal.

 

[Jonas78]

IMO there isnt a huge difference. 2010 is irrelevant as neither Djokovic or Nadal was a factor on clay that year, and in 2009 they were honestly equal factors (Djokovic played Nadal 3 times on clay in Masters semis/finals that year and pushed him each time, Fed beat a tired Nadal who Djokovic softened up for him once, then won RG where Nadal and Djokovic both went out early). I would say comparing Federer 2005-2008 to Djokovic 2011-2014 is the most relevant thing here. Neither played Nadal to win their RG titles, so even that part is nearly irrelevant.

The best ever Nadal on clay was 2008, 2010, 2012. So 1 Federer year, 1 lost year, and 1 Djokovic year. About a tie here.

The next best years of Nadal on clay were probably 2006, 2007, 2011, 2013. 2 Federer years and 2 Djokovic years. Again about tied.

2005, 2009, 2014 were the weakest of the Nadal prime/semi prime years on clay. So 1 Federer year, 1 Federer/Djokovic year, 1 Djokovic year. Again about tied.

So if that is your basis I see no real difference, and it changes nothing about my original stance. It is better to always go with results and achievements first regardless, as those are the most quantifiable ways to compare. Unless there is a very large and visible difference in playing level or competition, which clearly isnt the case here.

Lastly Federer's failure to win Rome/Monte Carlo was largely based on Federer himself, not entirely Nadal. He lost a very winnable final to Mantilla in 2003, went out early to Costa in MC or Rome (forget which) in 2004, lost to Gasquet after having a match point in 2005 which was prior to Nadal aserting any dominance on clay yet, lost to Stepanek in 2008, lost a final of Monte Carlo to his pigeon Wawrinka and went out another year 6-4, 6-1 to a nowhere near prime Wawrinka when Fed himself was at the top of the game. Wasted a match point vs Nadal in the 2006 final with a forehand UE, and yes while this was vs Nadal this has to be accounted to a failure by Federer himself. There are other examples, but Rome imparticular Federer is more at fault, than Nadal.

Biggest difference is late 2014-2016 imo where Nadal was completely off or injured, while Djoker was at his peak. Federer never got to play Nads in a situation like that on clay, and Djokovic won 4 clay masters in that period.

 

[hothanded]

Biggest difference is late 2014-2016 imo where Nadal was completely off or injured, while Djoker was at his peak. Federer never got to play Nads in a situation like that on clay (or in a situation where Nads was so bad that other players knocked him out), and Djokovic won 4 clay masters in that period.

Djokovic has already proven he can beat even a strong Nadal in clay Masters anyway though. And IIRC he had already won Monte Carlo/Rome before 2014, and Rome multiple times over, the biggest edge he has on Federer regardless. It is RG where he has problems beating Nadal (just like Federer), but as already noted Federer only won RG in a year Nadal didnt even make the quarters anyway so there still isnt much difference. Really at this point it is just spinning wheels as far as I am concerned. There is nothing significantly different enough about their competition to override Djokovic's superior performances/record overall on clay considering his big edge in Masters performance and equal RG performances. Both played in a very weak clay era, as evidenced by the fact the person who is the hands down clay GOAT and the greatest player on any single surface in history will probably wind up with like 14 RG titles, something that would never happen no matter how good they were unless it is an incredibly poor era on that surface. Both faced various flucuating versions of Nadal, but almost all of them formidable, and both faced each other some but rarely at their mutual peaks, and nothing else. Both benefitted bigtime from the non existing depth on clay to even make so many finals for so many years in the first place, something that is ignored in the whole "Djokovic and Fed would have won so much without Nadal on clay" talk, but that applies equally to both. So the person who has better results and to a lesser extent did better in the cummulative Nadal/Federer/ Djokovic meetings (which is clearly Djokovic) is the one ahead. If you feel otherwise fine, but I am not being sold by anything you have said to convince me otherwise.

 

[Jonas78]

Djokovic has already proven he can beat even a strong Nadal in clay Masters anyway though. And IIRC he had already won Monte Carlo/Rome before 2014, and Rome multiple times over, the biggest edge he has on Federer regardless. It is RG where he has problems beating Nadal (just like Federer), but as already noted Federer only won RG in a year Nadal didnt even make the quarters anyway so there still isnt much difference. Really at this point it is just spinning wheels as far as I am concerned. There is nothing significantly different enough about their competition to override Djokovic's superior performances/record overall on clay considering his big edge in Masters performance and equal RG performances. Both played in a very weak clay era, as evidenced by the fact the person who is the hands down clay GOAT and the greatest player on any single surface in history will probably wind up with like 14 RG titles, something that would never happen no matter how good they were unless it is an incredibly poor era on that surface. Both faced various flucuating versions of Nadal, but almost all of them formidable, and both faced each other some but rarely at their mutual peaks, and nothing else. Both benefitted bigtime from the non existing depth on clay to even make so many finals for so many years in the first place, something that is ignored in the whole "Djokovic and Fed would have won so much without Nadal on clay" talk, but that applies equally to both. So the person who has better results and to a lesser extent did better in the cummulative Nadal/Federer/ Djokovic meetings (which is clearly Djokovic) is the one ahead. If you feel otherwise fine, but I am not being sold by anything you have said to convince me otherwise.

I agree on the depth of the field, and thats why i think its a difficult comparison. The only factor (more or less) to compare Federers prime on clay vs Djokers is Nadal. So any change in level of play by Nads is crucial.

Djokovic has more titles on clay, so in that way he is the better player. But then Federer also is the better player overall with most slams. Fair enough.

If we add level of competition it gets more complicated, and i generally think peak-Djokovic got to face a weaker/injured Nadal more often than Peak-Federer did.

 

[abmk]

IMO there isnt a huge difference. 2010 is irrelevant as neither Djokovic or Nadal was a factor on clay that year, and in 2009 they were honestly equal factors (Djokovic played Nadal 3 times on clay in Masters semis/finals that year and pushed him each time, Fed beat a tired Nadal who Djokovic softened up for him once, then won RG where Nadal and Djokovic both went out early). I would say comparing Federer 2005-2008 to Djokovic 2011-2014 is the most relevant thing here. Neither played Nadal to win their RG titles, so even that part is nearly irrelevant.

The best ever Nadal on clay was 2008, 2010, 2012. So 1 Federer year, 1 lost year, and 1 Djokovic year. About a tie here.

The next best years of Nadal on clay were probably 2006, 2007, 2011, 2013. 2 Federer years and 2 Djokovic years. Again about tied.

2005, 2009, 2014 were the weakest of the Nadal prime/semi prime years on clay. So 1 Federer year, 1 Federer/Djokovic year, 1 Djokovic year. Again about tied.

So if that is your basis I see no real difference, and it changes nothing about my original stance. It is better to always go with results and achievements first regardless, as those are the most quantifiable ways to compare. Unless there is a very large and visible difference in playing level or competition, which clearly isnt the case here.

Lastly Federer's failure to win Rome/Monte Carlo was largely based on Federer himself, not entirely Nadal. He lost a very winnable final to Mantilla in 2003, went out early to Costa in MC or Rome (forget which) in 2004, lost to Gasquet after having a match point in 2005 which was prior to Nadal aserting any dominance on clay yet, lost to Stepanek in 2008, lost a final of Monte Carlo to his pigeon Wawrinka and went out another year 6-4, 6-1 to a nowhere near prime Wawrinka when Fed himself was at the top of the game. Wasted a match point vs Nadal in the 2006 final with a forehand UE, and yes while this was vs Nadal this has to be accounted to a failure by Federer himself. There are other examples, but Rome imparticular Federer is more at fault, than Nadal.

Nadal in 2007 > 2011,2013 on clay and its not even close.
2007 was a tad better level-wise than 2010 and about even with 2012 if we include Madrid blue clay.

2007 Nadal continues to be under-rated on clay.

Nadal in 2006 on clay > 2011, 2013 on clay as well.

so not tied.

2004, fed did not play Monte carlo. he went out to Costa at Rome.

2005 - yes, lost to Gasquet playing one of the matches of his life at Monte Carlo. Even if he had won vs Gasquet, he'd still have to beat Nadal and then Coria.

2009 Monte Carlo -- federer wasn't even scheduled to play it, but jumped in at the last minute. So not a surprise, he lost to Stan.

2006 Rome - 2 MPs , blown vs Nadal on missed FHs. But if Nadal weren't playing at that high a level in that match, federer would've beaten him.


Both Djokovic and Federer have 4 finals at Monte Carlo, but Djokovic got Berdych in 1 final (< Stan in MC 2014) and 2013 Nadal (<2006,07,08 Nadal at Monte Carlo)
I don't see much of a gap here to be honest. (at best slight edge to Djokovic for actually beating 2013 Nadal at MC). But fed also beat him at MC in 2008 and in 2014.

Djokovic is clearly better at Rome and Federer clearly better at Hamburg/Madrid.

 

[RS]

Nadal of 2006 looked better but he was as great at least in 2011/2013. Problems is Djokovic beat him 3 times thus making him look weaker. He only lost once to a non Djokovic opponent.

 

[KINGROGER]

Nadal in 2007 > 2011,2013 on clay and its not even close.
2007 was a tad better level-wise than 2010 and about even with 2012 if we include Madrid blue clay.

2007 Nadal continues to be under-rated on clay.

Nadal in 2006 on clay > 2011, 2013 on clay as well.

so not tied.

2004, fed did not play Monte carlo. he went out to Costa at Rome.

2005 - yes, lost to Gasquet playing one of the matches of his life at Monte Carlo. Even if he had won vs Gasquet, he'd still have to beat Nadal and then Coria.

2009 Monte Carlo -- federer wasn't even scheduled to play it, but jumped in at the last minute. So not a surprise, he lost to Stan.

2006 Rome - 2 MPs , blown vs Nadal on missed FHs. But if Nadal weren't playing at that high a level in that match, federer would've beaten him.


Both Djokovic and Federer have 4 finals at Monte Carlo, but Djokovic got Berdych in 1 final (< Stan in MC 2014) and 2013 Nadal (<2006,07,08 Nadal at Monte Carlo)
I don't see much of a gap here to be honest. (at best slight edge to Djokovic for actually beating 2013 Nadal at MC). But fed also beat him at MC in 2008 and in 2014.

Djokovic is clearly better at Rome and Federer clearly better at Hamburg/Madrid.

Pretty much this. And peak for peak I’d favour Federer over Djokovic because of his huge FH.

 

[Matthew Lee]

I'm glued to the computer screen looking at all the comments...and yet I have no opinion of mine own

 

[buscemi]

Ordering Lendl kuerten and wilander is tough

I'm not sure that there's a great argument for Wilander over Lendl. They each have 3 French Open titles and two other finals, but

-Lendl has 2 titles at Rome, Monte Carlo, and Hamburg vs. 2 Monte Carlo and 1 Rome title for Wilander;
-Lendl leads the H2H 5-4 on clay (2-2 at the French); and
-Lendl has 28 total titles on clay vs. 20 for Wilander.​

 

[hothanded]

I'm not sure that there's a great argument for Wilander over Lendl. They each have 3 French Open titles and two other finals, but

-Lendl has 2 titles at Rome, Monte Carlo, and Hamburg vs. 2 Monte Carlo and 1 Rome title for Wilander;
-Lendl leads the H2H 5-4 on clay (2-2 at the French); and
-Lendl has 28 total titles on clay vs. 20 for Wilander.​

I dont think there is anyway at all Wilander can be over Lendl. I can see Kuerten over both or behind both potentially (although I tend to rank him between them, behind Lendl and over Wilander).

And there should be no question that Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, and Wilander are top 5 in the Open Era. That is wht I am pretty stunned to see Federer have so many votes for top 5, I dont think either he or Djokovic (who I rank over Federer) could ever be ranked top 5 in the Open Era. Top 10 maybe.

 

[buscemi]

I dont think there is anyway at all Wilander can be over Lendl. I can see Kuerten over both or behind both potentially (although I tend to rank him between them, behind Lendl and over Wilander).

And there should be no question that Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, and Wilander are top 5 in the Open Era. That is wht I am pretty stunned to see Federer have so many votes for top 5, I dont think either he or Djokovic (who I rank over Federer) could ever be ranked top 5 in the Open Era. Top 10 maybe.

Yes, agreed: Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, and Wilander are definitely the top 5.

 

[hothanded]

Yes, agreed: Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, and Wilander are definitely the top 5.

How would you rank the womens top 15 clay courters since 1990, basically since Evert retired. Mine would probably be:

1. Graf- I feel I have to go with her, even if I hate doing it as I am pretty sure she is behind both Seles and Henin without the stabbing. As it is she played in a WAY deeper clay era than the lame ass one Henin played in even with the Seles stabbing and won more French Opens due to Henin's early retirement.

2. Henin- The only one besides Graf with more than 3 French Opens and by far the best clay courter of her era. I dont think Serena would be considered over her on clay even if she catches/passes her in French Opens. Had she not retired early she probably wins 8 or 9 French Opens and has the record there in the super weak clay era she played in, but stupidly had a knee jerk retirement due to a mini slump in early 2008.

3. Seles

4. Serena- I put her behind Seles since she won 3 French Opens in a much poorer clay era, and probably only started winning there again due to Henin's retirement. And was owned by Henin on clay in head to head. Plus Seles managed that even with the stabbing. And I am a huge Serena fan who believes she is clearly the overall GOAT at this point, but just being realistic in evaluating her on clay.

5. Sanchez- I put her behind even Serena since despite winning the same # of French Opens against stronger clay competition, lets face it she was pretty lucky all around. Graf choked at the end of the 89 final, Pierce wins in 94 almost for sure without the rain delay and without the Seles stabbing she falls to atleast 1 of Graf/Seles/red hot Pierce in the semis or finals for sure, 98 she got lucky Seles took Hingis out for her since she never beats Hingis. She isnt a dominant player on any surface, and baby Serena had her on the ropes in 98, the year of the last of her 3 titles there.

6. Pierce

7. Capriati

8. Sharapova- While she has 2 titles with the incredibly weak clay era she plays in I have no problem at all putting her behind 1 time Champs Pierce and Capriati. Subjectively I am almost 100% certain she is an inferior clay courter to people like Sabatini, Martinez, and Hingis in their primes but as they never won RG I cant really put her behind them after her 2nd title unfortunately.

9. Sabatini

10. Martinez

11. Hingis

12. Kuznetsova

13. Halep

14. Ivanovic

15. ??? Muguruza, Safina, Majoli, Fernandez, Clijsters, Stosur, Schiavone, Na Li, Venus, not sure

I am very comfortable with my top 14, but #15 I find almost impossible to pick.

 

[metsman]

Nadal in 2007 > 2011,2013 on clay and its not even close.
2007 was a tad better level-wise than 2010 and about even with 2012 if we include Madrid blue clay.

2007 Nadal continues to be under-rated on clay.

Nadal in 2006 on clay > 2011, 2013 on clay as well.

so not tied.

2004, fed did not play Monte carlo. he went out to Costa at Rome.

2005 - yes, lost to Gasquet playing one of the matches of his life at Monte Carlo. Even if he had won vs Gasquet, he'd still have to beat Nadal and then Coria.

2009 Monte Carlo -- federer wasn't even scheduled to play it, but jumped in at the last minute. So not a surprise, he lost to Stan.

2006 Rome - 2 MPs , blown vs Nadal on missed FHs. But if Nadal weren't playing at that high a level in that match, federer would've beaten him.


Both Djokovic and Federer have 4 finals at Monte Carlo, but Djokovic got Berdych in 1 final (< Stan in MC 2014) and 2013 Nadal (<2006,07,08 Nadal at Monte Carlo)
I don't see much of a gap here to be honest. (at best slight edge to Djokovic for actually beating 2013 Nadal at MC). But fed also beat him at MC in 2008 and in 2014.

Djokovic is clearly better at Rome and Federer clearly better at Hamburg/Madrid.

All Djokovic basically has over Federer on clay is 1 extra high level year (08, 11-16 vs 05-09 and 11). You can argue that Fed has better peak performances especially at RG so it depends how you weigh the two.

 

[metsman]

How would you rank the womens top 15 clay courters since 1990, basically since Evert retired. Mine would probably be:

1. Graf- I feel I have to go with her, even if I hate doing it as I am pretty sure she is behind both Seles and Henin without the stabbing. As it is she played in a WAY deeper clay era than the lame ass one Henin played in even with the Seles stabbing and won more French Opens due to Henin's early retirement.

2. Henin- The only one besides Graf with more than 3 French Opens and by far the best clay courter of her era. I dont think Serena would be considered over her on clay even if she catches/passes her in French Opens. Had she not retired early she probably wins 8 or 9 French Opens and has the record there in the super weak clay era she played in, but stupidly had a knee jerk retirement due to a mini slump in early 2008.

3. Seles

4. Serena- I put her behind Seles since she won 3 French Opens in a much poorer clay era, and probably only started winning there again due to Henin's retirement. And was owned by Henin on clay in head to head. Plus Seles managed that even with the stabbing. And I am a huge Serena fan who believes she is clearly the overall GOAT at this point, but just being realistic in evaluating her on clay.

5. Sanchez- I put her behind even Serena since despite winning the same # of French Opens against stronger clay competition, lets face it she was pretty lucky all around. Graf choked at the end of the 89 final, Pierce wins in 94 almost for sure without the rain delay and without the Seles stabbing she falls to atleast 1 of Graf/Seles/red hot Pierce in the semis or finals for sure, 98 she got lucky Seles took Hingis out for her since she never beats Hingis. She isnt a dominant player on any surface, and baby Serena had her on the ropes in 98, the year of the last of her 3 titles there.

6. Pierce

7. Capriati

8. Sharapova- While she has 2 titles with the incredibly weak clay era she plays in I have no problem at all putting her behind 1 time Champs Pierce and Capriati. Subjectively I am almost 100% certain she is an inferior clay courter to people like Sabatini, Martinez, and Hingis in their primes but as they never won RG I cant really put her behind them after her 2nd title unfortunately.

9. Sabatini

10. Martinez

11. Hingis

12. Kuznetsova

13. Halep

14. Ivanovic

15. ??? Muguruza, Safina, Majoli, Fernandez, Clijsters, Stosur, Schiavone, Na Li, Venus, not sure

I am very comfortable with my top 14, but #15 I find almost impossible to pick.

lol there has to be only one person, but many avatars, in this universe who actually cares who the top 15 women on clay are.

 

[MLRoy]

Kuerten was not better than Federer on Clay.

They played 3 times. All on clay. Kuerten won 2/3, including the last time in 2004, for what it's worth.

 

[Benben245]

They played 3 times. All on clay. Kuerten won 2/3, including the last time in 2004, for what it's worth.

Roddick won the U.S. Open in 2003, I think Federer during that time was not yet Federer.

 

[myth]

Fed is amazing on clay...

Beating Ferrer on clay in 1 hour is pretty sick.

Without Nadal, he would have won several times the FO Rome and MC.

 

[SonnyT]

How can he rank behind Djokovic when he beat him at his peak on that surface?

Such a stupid answer! You take a whole body of work, not one or two matches!

Yeah, Safin must be a better HC player than Federer, because he once beat Fed in an AO SF! I can see your logic!

Anyone can always cherry pick a handful of matches!

 

[lucky13]

how can Fed be better grass player than Nole when Nole has 3 - 0 in Wimblendon finals against him? How can he be better player than Nole when he has negative h2h and how can he be GOAT when he is inferior in h2h with two of his main rivals? Finally, how can he be better than Muzza when he had negative h2h against him when Fed was in his prime?

 

[NatF]

how can Fed be better grass player than Nole when Nole has 3 - 0 in Wimblendon finals against him? How can he be better player than Nole when he has negative h2h and how can he be GOAT when he is inferior in h2h with two of his main rivals? Finally, how can he be better than Muzza when he had negative h2h against him when the Fed was in his prime?

Fed isn't better than Murray because he had a losing H2H with him in his prime...but he's also not better than Djokovic despite having a winning h2h with him in his prime?

 

[DSH]

Top 10!

 

[Eren]

Such a stupid answer! You take a whole body of work, not one or two matches!

Yeah, Safin must be a better HC player than Federer, because he once beat Fed in an AO final! I can see your logic!

Anyone can always cherry pick a handful of matches!

Federer beat Safin in an AO final. Safin never beat Federer in any Slam final. He did beat him in an AO SF.

 

[lucky13]

Fed isn't better than Murray because he had a losing H2H with him in his prime...but he's also not better than Djokovic despite having a winning h2h with him in his prime?

I wrote it as a reflection on this:

Service Ace said:
How can he rank behind Djokovic when he beat him at his peak on that surface?

Such a stupid answer! You take a whole body of work, not one or two matches!

Yeah, Safin must be a better HC player than Federer, because he once beat Fed in an AO final! I can see your logic!

Anyone can always cherry pick a handful of matches!

 

[Ovie]

Wow thats tough, i really dont know. Its 4-3 Djokovic isnt it? I would say its a really tough call. Djoker has beaten Rafa on FO and has a better H2H vs him. But Federer beat Djoker in straights at FO11. Maybe some match up issues? What do you think?

straight sets? wow you lie just to make your stand, shame

 

[BrooklynNY]

I only see the "without Nadal, Federer would have won 5 French Opens" arguement for Federer.

Meanwhile, Djokovic has lost to Nadal at Roland Garros more than Federer has, how many French Opens would Djokovic have if not for Nadal?

I would bet on Djokovic beating Federer in many French Open contests

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I only see the "without Nadal, Federer would have won 5 French Opens" arguement for Federer.

Meanwhile, Djokovic has lost to Nadal at Roland Garros more than Federer has, how many French Opens would Djokovic have if not for Nadal?

I would bet on Djokovic beating Federer in many French Open contests

Both lost to the nadal six times at RG.

 

[DSH]

Both lost to the nadal six times at RG.

Djokovic was fortunate not facing Nadal at RG from 2017 to 2019!

 

[BrooklynNY]

Ok, so there you go, and Nadal has 12 French Opens, so that's essentially Federers and Djokovic's supposed French Opens, which is why his French Open record is actually the most insane tennis related feat ever/so far going right now.

 

[DSH]

Ok, so there you go, and Nadal has 12 French Opens, so that's essentially Federers and Djokovic's supposed French Opens, which is why his French Open record is actually the most insane tennis related feat ever/so far going right now.

Even Rod Laver

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Nadal





Borg


Willander/Kuerten/Lendl
Djokovic
Federer

 

[Matchpras]

He doesn't. Coasted to slam finals in a sadly shallow field with Clay GOAT at top and no one else throughout.