WHO ARE THE 20 BEST CLAY COURT PLAYERS EVER?

[mtincoronel76]

Looking for information about the best clay tennis players of all time, I found an interesting article by Simon Briggs in The Telegraph, made in 2016. On the eve of Roland Garros that year, Simon made his ranking of the 20 best tennis players about clay of all time. The result was the following:


1- Rafa Nadal
2- Bjorn Borg
3- Guillermo Vilas
4- Ivan Lendl
5- Thomas Muster
6- Mats Wilander
7- Guga Kuerten
8- Ken Rosewall
9- Novak Djokovic
10- Manuel Orantes
11- Illie Nastase
12- Roger Federer
13- Rod Laver
14- Sergi Bruguera
15- Yannik Noah
16- Carlos Moya
17- Jim Courier
18- Juan Carlos Ferrero
19- Adriano Panatta
20- Jan Kodes

and there is the link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/t...ourt-players-of-all-time-by-Simon-Briggs.html

Although the article is quite new, some recent results (Nole won 2 Rome Opens in that period) can change this ranking significantly by Briggs. But not much. Here some short reviews - based mostly on clay titles, matches, majors and winning average - of the most notable for me in this list :


Nadal: Little to say. 11 Roland Garros, historical record by scandal. An absolutely insane 92.02% Winning percentage on clay. 81 consecutive vintages and 57 clay titles. The ONE, by level and also by mere consistency.

Borg: Also undisputed. His dominance in clay (6 Roland Garros in 8 years) was similar to that of Rafa, his Winning percentage of 86.20% is very very high. but the global numbers of Spanish are so big that they leave me no other option but to leave it in second place. It could be added in passing that unlike Nadal, Borg was practically invincible in both clay and grass but that does not mean anything in this evaluation.

Vilas: I would tie him with Lendl whitout problem. He does not have so many Clay Majors, it's true. He won 1 Roland Garros and 1 US Open played in Forest Hills on Clay, both in their formidable season of 1977. But if it werent for Borg (who beat him in the 1975 and 78 RG finals) he would have FOUR. However the overall statistics of the "Bull of the Pampas" are simply colossal: A great Winning Percentage of 79.79%. His 679 clay victories are a record practically impossible to overcome by someone in the future (Nadal currently has 415). 49 titles, record only surpassed by Nadal, and a streak 53 consecutive wins for the pioneer of the "tweener" (or "Grand Willy", if you will), also surpassed only by Rafa (81). Very similar style to Nadal and Borg, but come on, I play the same era as the Swede (who practically did everything the same, but faster), and that definitely counted against him ...

Lendl: with 28 titles in clay and 329 games wins, is far from the numbers of Vilas. But he won 3 Roland Garros, and his Winning Percentge is quite better: 81.03%. As I said, I do not decide between him and the Argentine.

Muster: the "King Of Clay" of the '90s. third in the ranking of tournaments won with 40, but falls a bit in the Winnig Percentage: 77.03%. His only victory at Roland Garros 95 seems little for his undeniable level as a clay player.

Djokovic: Well, I do not know if I raised it too much, we'll see ... Nole is practically very good on any surface, and maybe that's why he played more in others. Maybe that's also why its 14 clay titles. A single Roland Garros? But he played other 3 finals! 2 against Nadal! And its Winning percentage 79.37% is just inferior to that of Vilas and superior to that of Muster.

Rosewall: Ken could be higher or lower depending on the criteria. Without denying that he is one of the greatest of all time, it is also true that a large part of his career was in an era with less gobal competition than now (read less elite world tennis players). His first Roland Garros in 1954 was as an amateur, so his value is significantly lower. But he also won it in 1968, the first year of the Open Era, and before Laver, nothing less. To that we must add 4 French Pro Open (58-60-61-62) on clay, which was the "real" Major during those years. But we already said, lower level of competition, and a total 74.12% Winning Percentage that does not help much. Let each one decide ...

Wilander: It could also go up or down. 3 Roland Garros and 2 more finals. Impress in that aspect. 264 victories quite well. 76.74% Winning Percentage, similar to Rosewall. 7 total titles in clay, little here, too little really.

Laver: I have to go up a bit to one of the GOAT, yes or yes. 1 Roland Garros amateur. 1 Open Era Roland Garros (1969, the year of his second Grand Slam). No Major Pro in clay. 7 clay titles in the Open era, but a total of 53 in his entire career. And a great 79,08% Winning Percentage total although in the Open it was quite low: 76%. Again, times and levels of competition are mixed.

Federer: I have to evaluate the other GOAT, yes or yes. Some think he was (is) mediocre on clay just for being fantastic on other surfaces. Big mistake. It is only necessary to mention that he plays against Nadal (and he lost 4 Roland Garros finals to him), that's why he only has one single French Open. Why is not it higher then? 11 titles in clay and 75.89% Winning Average. Too little compared to the specialists above.

Kuerten: Another case similar to Wilander. The Brazilian charismatic triumphed in 3 Roland Garros and won 20 titles. But his irregularity in clay is reflected in his 181 victories and 78 total defeats for a "small" 69% 88 Winning Average.

Nastase: 77.38% Winning Percentage and 31 total titles, large number. But a single Roland Garros (against Pilic), and another lost final (against Kodes). Great player, although his was more to play the Masters ...

Orantes: Another specialist: 30 titles and 77% Winning Average. He lost his only Roland Garros final in 1974 against Borg.

The others on the list:

Brugera: 2 Roland Garros (93-94 anteCourier and Berasategui) 13 clay titles, 69% winning Average.

Noah: 1 Roland Garros (1983), 12 clay titles, 74% Winning Average.

Moya: 1 Roland Garros (1998), 16 clay titles. 70% Winning Average.

Courier: 2 Roland Garros (91-92), 3 clay titles. 69% Winning Average.

Ferrero: 1 Roland Garros, 13 clay titles, 73% Winninng Average.

Kodes: 2 Roland Garros (71-72), 5 clay titles, 69% Winning Average.

Panatta: 1 Roland Garros, 8n clay titles, 69% Winning Average. The only player to beat Borg in the French Open.



Other old players that I would easilly add:

Tony Trabert: 2 Majors Pro (56-59) plus 2 Roland Garros amateurs (54-55) 71,76% Winning Average.

Henry Cochet: 4 Roland Garros amateurs (26-28-30-32), 1 French Open Pro (36), 65 clay titles !!!!! 82.79% Winning Average !! Again, other era but ...

René Lacoste: 3 Roland Garros amateurs (25-27-29), but none French Pro. 13 clay titles. 87.34% Winning Average !!!! Nice t-shirts, btw ...

Jean Borotra: 3 Roland Garros amaterus (28-29-34). None French Pro. 19 clay titles. 82.72 Winning Average !!





Other players that do not pass my cut, but also could be:

Pancho Gonzales: another GOAT. 27 clay titles but 71.34% Winning Average.

André Agassi: 1 Roland Garros, 7 clay titles, 72.73% Winning Average

Andy Murray: 1 final of Roland Garros. 3 clay titles, 69.93% Winning Average.

José Luis Clerc: 21 clay titles. 77.44% Wining Average.

Marcelo Ríos: 9 clay titles. 66.23% Winning Average.

Guillermo Coria: 1 final of Roland Garros, 8 clay titles, 71,66% Winning Average

Gaston Gaudio: 1 Roland Garros, 8 clay Titles, 69.94% Winning Average

Alex Corretja: 10 clay titles, 66% 29% Winning Average.


sure I forgot some, If you name someone else, I dont get angry.
Regards!!

 

[boredone3456]

I'd add David Ferrer to the list of players not to pass the cut. He has, like Murray, 1 RG final but won 13 clay titles. He made 15 additional finals on clay (losing 8 to Rafa, 2 to Wawrinka and 2 to Ferrero). Arguably he is better than several of the folks to make your list on clay despite his mental issues at Roland Garros.

I'd also put Wawrinka in the discussion if you are going to even List Andy Murray. A win at Roland Garros, an additional Runner up. 7 clay titles (1 of which is a masters beating Federer in the final).

 

[Deleted member 735320]

I don't really see the point of this list. Rafa is so far above any other player in his clay results. I am not a Rafa fan but results are results. Numbers 2-20 are not worth speculating on when Rafa exists. Until another man puts up better numbers there is no discussion.

 

[mtincoronel76]

I don't really see the point of this list. Rafa is so far above any other player in his clay results. I am not a Rafa fan but results are results. Numbers 2-20 are not worth speculating on when Rafa exists. Until another man puts up better numbers there is no discussion.

We already know who is the best, and also who is the second! is that the question is who are the best 20, not who is the best ... but thanks for sharing your opinion!

 

[mtincoronel76]

I'd add David Ferrer to the list of players not to pass the cut. He has, like Murray, 1 RG final but won 13 clay titles. He made 15 additional finals on clay (losing 8 to Rafa, 2 to Wawrinka and 2 to Ferrero). Arguably he is better than several of the folks to make your list on clay despite his mental issues at Roland Garros.

I'd also put Wawrinka in the discussion if you are going to even List Andy Murray. A win at Roland Garros, an additional Runner up. 7 clay titles (1 of which is a masters beating Federer in the final).

yes Warwinka and Ferrer also should be...

 

[papertank]

Murray should be number 1

 

[True Fanerer]

Andres Gomez - 70.1% 16 titles including 1 FO, 2 Rome Masters, 2 Barcelona, and 1 Forest Hills (ATP 500)

 

[NatF]

Looking for information about the best clay tennis players of all time, I found an interesting article by Simon Briggs in The Telegraph, made in 2016. On the eve of Roland Garros that year, Simon made his ranking of the 20 best tennis players about clay of all time. The result was the following:


1- Rafa Nadal
2- Bjorn Borg
3- Guillermo Vilas
4- Ivan Lendl
5- Thomas Muster
6- Mats Wilander
7- Guga Kuerten
8- Ken Rosewall
9- Novak Djokovic
10- Manuel Orantes
11- Illie Nastase
12- Roger Federer
13- Rod Laver
14- Sergi Bruguera
15- Yannik Noah
16- Carlos Moya
17- Jim Courier
18- Juan Carlos Ferrero
19- Adriano Panatta
20- Jan Kodes

and there is the link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/t...ourt-players-of-all-time-by-Simon-Briggs.html

Although the article is quite new, some recent results (Nole won 2 Rome Opens in that period) can change this ranking significantly by Briggs. But not much. Here some short reviews - based mostly on clay titles, matches, majors and winning average - of the most notable for me in this list :


Nadal: Little to say. 11 Roland Garros, historical record by scandal. An absolutely insane 92.02% Winning percentage on clay. 81 consecutive vintages and 57 clay titles. The ONE, by level and also by mere consistency.

Borg: Also undisputed. His dominance in clay (6 Roland Garros in 8 years) was similar to that of Rafa, his Winning percentage of 86.20% is very very high. but the global numbers of Spanish are so big that they leave me no other option but to leave it in second place. It could be added in passing that unlike Nadal, Borg was practically invincible in both clay and grass but that does not mean anything in this evaluation.

Vilas: I would tie him with Lendl whitout problem. He does not have so many Clay Majors, it's true. He won 1 Roland Garros and 1 US Open played in Forest Hills on Clay, both in their formidable season of 1977. But if it werent for Borg (who beat him in the 1975 and 78 RG finals) he would have FOUR. However the overall statistics of the "Bull of the Pampas" are simply colossal: A great Winning Percentage of 79.79%. His 679 clay victories are a record practically impossible to overcome by someone in the future (Nadal currently has 415). 49 titles, record only surpassed by Nadal, and a streak 53 consecutive wins for the pioneer of the "tweener" (or "Grand Willy", if you will), also surpassed only by Rafa (81). Very similar style to Nadal and Borg, but come on, I play the same era as the Swede (who practically did everything the same, but faster), and that definitely counted against him ...

Lendl: with 28 titles in clay and 329 games wins, is far from the numbers of Vilas. But he won 3 Roland Garros, and his Winning Percentge is quite better: 81.03%. As I said, I do not decide between him and the Argentine.

Muster: the "King Of Clay" of the '90s. third in the ranking of tournaments won with 40, but falls a bit in the Winnig Percentage: 77.03%. His only victory at Roland Garros 95 seems little for his undeniable level as a clay player.

Djokovic: Well, I do not know if I raised it too much, we'll see ... Nole is practically very good on any surface, and maybe that's why he played more in others. Maybe that's also why its 14 clay titles. A single Roland Garros? But he played other 3 finals! 2 against Nadal! And its Winning percentage 79.37% is just inferior to that of Vilas and superior to that of Muster.

Rosewall: Ken could be higher or lower depending on the criteria. Without denying that he is one of the greatest of all time, it is also true that a large part of his career was in an era with less gobal competition than now (read less elite world tennis players). His first Roland Garros in 1954 was as an amateur, so his value is significantly lower. But he also won it in 1968, the first year of the Open Era, and before Laver, nothing less. To that we must add 4 French Pro Open (58-60-61-62) on clay, which was the "real" Major during those years. But we already said, lower level of competition, and a total 74.12% Winning Percentage that does not help much. Let each one decide ...

Wilander: It could also go up or down. 3 Roland Garros and 2 more finals. Impress in that aspect. 264 victories quite well. 76.74% Winning Percentage, similar to Rosewall. 7 total titles in clay, little here, too little really.

Laver: I have to go up a bit to one of the GOAT, yes or yes. 1 Roland Garros amateur. 1 Open Era Roland Garros (1969, the year of his second Grand Slam). No Major Pro in clay. 7 clay titles in the Open era, but a total of 53 in his entire career. And a great 79,08% Winning Percentage total although in the Open it was quite low: 76%. Again, times and levels of competition are mixed.

Federer: I have to evaluate the other GOAT, yes or yes. Some think he was (is) mediocre on clay just for being fantastic on other surfaces. Big mistake. It is only necessary to mention that he plays against Nadal (and he lost 4 Roland Garros finals to him), that's why he only has one single French Open. Why is not it higher then? 11 titles in clay and 75.89% Winning Average. Too little compared to the specialists above.

Kuerten: Another case similar to Wilander. The Brazilian charismatic triumphed in 3 Roland Garros and won 20 titles. But his irregularity in clay is reflected in his 181 victories and 78 total defeats for a "small" 69% 88 Winning Average.

Nastase: 77.38% Winning Percentage and 31 total titles, large number. But a single Roland Garros (against Pilic), and another lost final (against Kodes). Great player, although his was more to play the Masters ...

Orantes: Another specialist: 30 titles and 77% Winning Average. He lost his only Roland Garros final in 1974 against Borg.

The others on the list:

Brugera: 2 Roland Garros (93-94 anteCourier and Berasategui) 13 clay titles, 69% winning Average.

Noah: 1 Roland Garros (1983), 12 clay titles, 74% Winning Average.

Moya: 1 Roland Garros (1998), 16 clay titles. 70% Winning Average.

Courier: 2 Roland Garros (91-92), 3 clay titles. 69% Winning Average.

Ferrero: 1 Roland Garros, 13 clay titles, 73% Winninng Average.

Kodes: 2 Roland Garros (71-72), 5 clay titles, 69% Winning Average.

Panatta: 1 Roland Garros, 8n clay titles, 69% Winning Average. The only player to beat Borg in the French Open.



Other old players that I would easilly add:

Tony Trabert: 2 Majors Pro (56-59) plus 2 Roland Garros amateurs (54-55) 71,76% Winning Average.

Henry Cochet: 4 Roland Garros amateurs (26-28-30-32), 1 French Open Pro (36), 65 clay titles !!!!! 82.79% Winning Average !! Again, other era but ...

René Lacoste: 3 Roland Garros amateurs (25-27-29), but none French Pro. 13 clay titles. 87.34% Winning Average !!!! Nice t-shirts, btw ...

Jean Borotra: 3 Roland Garros amaterus (28-29-34). None French Pro. 19 clay titles. 82.72 Winning Average !!





Other players that do not pass my cut, but also could be:

Pancho Gonzales: another GOAT. 27 clay titles but 71.34% Winning Average.

André Agassi: 1 Roland Garros, 7 clay titles, 72.73% Winning Average

Andy Murray: 1 final of Roland Garros. 3 clay titles, 69.93% Winning Average.

José Luis Clerc: 21 clay titles. 77.44% Wining Average.

Marcelo Ríos: 9 clay titles. 66.23% Winning Average.

Guillermo Coria: 1 final of Roland Garros, 8 clay titles, 71,66% Winning Average

Gaston Gaudio: 1 Roland Garros, 8 clay Titles, 69.94% Winning Average

Alex Corretja: 10 clay titles, 66% 29% Winning Average.


If you name someone else, I dont get angry.
Regards!!

Murray as an honourable mention? What has the world come to Also Wawrinka and Kafelnikov should be on the honourable mentions as well considering some of the others - guys like Medvedev as well should get a look in maybe if you're including Murray and Rios.

IMO Vilas and Muster are too high for people with just one FO - despite their many smaller titles on the surface. Muster probably would be somewhere in the top 10 without his accident/injuries. Vilas was so far behind Borg in terms of level he's probably more in the Djokovic/Federer class IMO.

I'd put Courier and Bruguera above Djokovic based on their multi FO's and the fact I think they were better dirt players relative to their own era's. I'd put Ferrero a bit higher as well, he was going toe to toe with peak Kuerten as a 20 year old and was extremely good on clay - top level maybe higher than Federer/Djokovic or thereabouts IMO. I'd slot him in probably around #10-#15, above Moya who I definitely feel wasn't as good as Ferrero.

Kuerten is too low as well, I'd put him just beneath Lendl and clearly above anyone without multi FO's.

Rosewall is an interesting one, he won 6 clay majors but most of them were in split fields - peak for peak I'm not sure if he was clearly better than Laver, though he obviously won more amateur/pro/open majors on the surface. Really depends how you want to rate the pre-open era. If Rosewall is top 10 then Trabert who is basically from the same era probably deserves to be top 20 etc...

TBH I'd focus on the OE list first and then do the pre-open era editions.

 

[mtincoronel76]

Murray as an honourable mention? What has the world come to Also Wawrinka and Kafelnikov should be on the honourable mentions as well considering some of the others - guys like Medvedev as well should get a look in maybe if you're including Murray and Rios.

IMO Vilas and Muster are too high for people with just one FO - despite their many smaller titles on the surface. Muster probably would be somewhere in the top 10 without his accident/injuries. Vilas was so far behind Borg in terms of level he's probably more in the Djokovic/Federer class IMO.

I'd put Courier and Bruguera above Djokovic based on their multi FO's and the fact I think they were better dirt players relative to their own era's. I'd put Ferrero a bit higher as well, he was going toe to toe with peak Kuerten as a 20 year old and was extremely good on clay - top level maybe higher than Federer/Djokovic or thereabouts IMO. I'd slot him in probably around #10-#15, above Moya who I definitely feel wasn't as good as Ferrero.

Kuerten is too low as well, I'd put him just beneath Lendl and clearly above anyone without multi FO's.

Rosewall is an interesting one, he won 6 clay majors but most of them were in split fields - peak for peak I'm not sure if he was clearly better than Laver, though he obviously won more amateur/pro/open majors on the surface. Really depends how you want to rate the pre-open era. If Rosewall is top 10 then Trabert who is basically from the same era probably deserves to be top 20 etc...

TBH I'd focus on the OE list first and then do the pre-open era editions.

ok, it happens that Murray arrived 5 times in a row at SF in RG, one time won it but had the bad luck to run into the Big Three ... also Warwinka's Winning Percentage is relatively low (66.9%), it must be that I missed ... but it's good to add it, of course yes.

nobody gonna show your top 20?

 

[Towny]

Agree with NatF about Vilas being too high. The guy was great but I think clearly inferior to others such as Lendl. Vilas was trashed by Borg both times they played at RG. At least Federer and Novak managed to take sets off Nadal, who arguably played at a higher level than Borg, when they played at RG.

It's just very hard to rank clay courters because we don't really know what effect Borg and Nadal had on their respective eras. Maybe Djokovic and Federer would have had multiple RGs without Nadal but equally the rest of the clay field has been pretty poor during this era and they may have struggled with deeper fields. It's all speculation

 

[NatF]

ok, it happens that Murray arrived 5 times in a row at SF in RG, one time won it but had the bad luck to run into the Big Three ... also Warwinka's Winning Percentage is relatively low (66.9%), it must be that I missed ... but it's good to add it, of course yes.

nobody gonna show your top 20?

It was 4 in a row but in 2014 he had a very soft draw and was absolutely destroyed by Nadal.

 

[Towny]

Appreciate the work put into the list though. Some good research here

 

[BeatlesFan]

Appreciate the work put into the list though. Some good research here

I agree, thanks for starting a decent new topic.

My only quibble is that I feel you're devaluing RG and elevating other clay events at RG's expense. Even though I love Muster and he was a clay beast, he shouldn't ever be placed ahead of Mats and Guga, both of whom won three RG's to Muster's one. I also think you've placed Djokovic way, way too high. Even though he dominated Rafa on the clay in 2011, he has won one FO and should therefore historically not be ahead of Courier or Brugera who won two FO's.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I think Djokovic is okay there, unless you want to put (for example) Rosewall ahead. His winning percentage is way higher than either Courier or Bruguera, he's won more clay court titles overall, defeated Nadal at RG, and has (essentially) 4 runner-up finishes. It was ridiculous that he met Rafa in a 1v3 2013 semi - and that match could've gone either way. Obviously that was the de facto final. (I do get that RG should be valued higher than other clay titles, but I would also say that Novak's overall RG record is better than those two.

 

[timnz]

Looking for information about the best clay tennis players of all time, I found an interesting article by Simon Briggs in The Telegraph, made in 2016. On the eve of Roland Garros that year, Simon made his ranking of the 20 best tennis players about clay of all time. The result was the following:


1- Rafa Nadal
2- Bjorn Borg
3- Guillermo Vilas
4- Ivan Lendl
5- Thomas Muster
6- Mats Wilander
7- Guga Kuerten
8- Ken Rosewall
9- Novak Djokovic
10- Manuel Orantes
11- Illie Nastase
12- Roger Federer
13- Rod Laver
14- Sergi Bruguera
15- Yannik Noah
16- Carlos Moya
17- Jim Courier
18- Juan Carlos Ferrero
19- Adriano Panatta
20- Jan Kodes

and there is the link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/t...ourt-players-of-all-time-by-Simon-Briggs.html

Although the article is quite new, some recent results (Nole won 2 Rome Opens in that period) can change this ranking significantly by Briggs. But not much. Here some short reviews - based mostly on clay titles, matches, majors and winning average - of the most notable for me in this list :


Nadal: Little to say. 11 Roland Garros, historical record by scandal. An absolutely insane 92.02% Winning percentage on clay. 81 consecutive vintages and 57 clay titles. The ONE, by level and also by mere consistency.

Borg: Also undisputed. His dominance in clay (6 Roland Garros in 8 years) was similar to that of Rafa, his Winning percentage of 86.20% is very very high. but the global numbers of Spanish are so big that they leave me no other option but to leave it in second place. It could be added in passing that unlike Nadal, Borg was practically invincible in both clay and grass but that does not mean anything in this evaluation.

Vilas: I would tie him with Lendl whitout problem. He does not have so many Clay Majors, it's true. He won 1 Roland Garros and 1 US Open played in Forest Hills on Clay, both in their formidable season of 1977. But if it werent for Borg (who beat him in the 1975 and 78 RG finals) he would have FOUR. However the overall statistics of the "Bull of the Pampas" are simply colossal: A great Winning Percentage of 79.79%. His 679 clay victories are a record practically impossible to overcome by someone in the future (Nadal currently has 415). 49 titles, record only surpassed by Nadal, and a streak 53 consecutive wins for the pioneer of the "tweener" (or "Grand Willy", if you will), also surpassed only by Rafa (81). Very similar style to Nadal and Borg, but come on, I play the same era as the Swede (who practically did everything the same, but faster), and that definitely counted against him ...

Lendl: with 28 titles in clay and 329 games wins, is far from the numbers of Vilas. But he won 3 Roland Garros, and his Winning Percentge is quite better: 81.03%. As I said, I do not decide between him and the Argentine.

Muster: the "King Of Clay" of the '90s. third in the ranking of tournaments won with 40, but falls a bit in the Winnig Percentage: 77.03%. His only victory at Roland Garros 95 seems little for his undeniable level as a clay player.

Djokovic: Well, I do not know if I raised it too much, we'll see ... Nole is practically very good on any surface, and maybe that's why he played more in others. Maybe that's also why its 14 clay titles. A single Roland Garros? But he played other 3 finals! 2 against Nadal! And its Winning percentage 79.37% is just inferior to that of Vilas and superior to that of Muster.

Rosewall: Ken could be higher or lower depending on the criteria. Without denying that he is one of the greatest of all time, it is also true that a large part of his career was in an era with less gobal competition than now (read less elite world tennis players). His first Roland Garros in 1954 was as an amateur, so his value is significantly lower. But he also won it in 1968, the first year of the Open Era, and before Laver, nothing less. To that we must add 4 French Pro Open (58-60-61-62) on clay, which was the "real" Major during those years. But we already said, lower level of competition, and a total 74.12% Winning Percentage that does not help much. Let each one decide ...

Wilander: It could also go up or down. 3 Roland Garros and 2 more finals. Impress in that aspect. 264 victories quite well. 76.74% Winning Percentage, similar to Rosewall. 7 total titles in clay, little here, too little really.

Laver: I have to go up a bit to one of the GOAT, yes or yes. 1 Roland Garros amateur. 1 Open Era Roland Garros (1969, the year of his second Grand Slam). No Major Pro in clay. 7 clay titles in the Open era, but a total of 53 in his entire career. And a great 79,08% Winning Percentage total although in the Open it was quite low: 76%. Again, times and levels of competition are mixed.

Federer: I have to evaluate the other GOAT, yes or yes. Some think he was (is) mediocre on clay just for being fantastic on other surfaces. Big mistake. It is only necessary to mention that he plays against Nadal (and he lost 4 Roland Garros finals to him), that's why he only has one single French Open. Why is not it higher then? 11 titles in clay and 75.89% Winning Average. Too little compared to the specialists above.

Kuerten: Another case similar to Wilander. The Brazilian charismatic triumphed in 3 Roland Garros and won 20 titles. But his irregularity in clay is reflected in his 181 victories and 78 total defeats for a "small" 69% 88 Winning Average.

Nastase: 77.38% Winning Percentage and 31 total titles, large number. But a single Roland Garros (against Pilic), and another lost final (against Kodes). Great player, although his was more to play the Masters ...

Orantes: Another specialist: 30 titles and 77% Winning Average. He lost his only Roland Garros final in 1974 against Borg.

The others on the list:

Brugera: 2 Roland Garros (93-94 anteCourier and Berasategui) 13 clay titles, 69% winning Average.

Noah: 1 Roland Garros (1983), 12 clay titles, 74% Winning Average.

Moya: 1 Roland Garros (1998), 16 clay titles. 70% Winning Average.

Courier: 2 Roland Garros (91-92), 3 clay titles. 69% Winning Average.

Ferrero: 1 Roland Garros, 13 clay titles, 73% Winninng Average.

Kodes: 2 Roland Garros (71-72), 5 clay titles, 69% Winning Average.

Panatta: 1 Roland Garros, 8n clay titles, 69% Winning Average. The only player to beat Borg in the French Open.



Other old players that I would easilly add:

Tony Trabert: 2 Majors Pro (56-59) plus 2 Roland Garros amateurs (54-55) 71,76% Winning Average.

Henry Cochet: 4 Roland Garros amateurs (26-28-30-32), 1 French Open Pro (36), 65 clay titles !!!!! 82.79% Winning Average !! Again, other era but ...

René Lacoste: 3 Roland Garros amateurs (25-27-29), but none French Pro. 13 clay titles. 87.34% Winning Average !!!! Nice t-shirts, btw ...

Jean Borotra: 3 Roland Garros amaterus (28-29-34). None French Pro. 19 clay titles. 82.72 Winning Average !!





Other players that do not pass my cut, but also could be:

Pancho Gonzales: another GOAT. 27 clay titles but 71.34% Winning Average.

André Agassi: 1 Roland Garros, 7 clay titles, 72.73% Winning Average

Andy Murray: 1 final of Roland Garros. 3 clay titles, 69.93% Winning Average.

José Luis Clerc: 21 clay titles. 77.44% Wining Average.

Marcelo Ríos: 9 clay titles. 66.23% Winning Average.

Guillermo Coria: 1 final of Roland Garros, 8 clay titles, 71,66% Winning Average

Gaston Gaudio: 1 Roland Garros, 8 clay Titles, 69.94% Winning Average

Alex Corretja: 10 clay titles, 66% 29% Winning Average.


sure I forgot some, If you name someone else, I dont get angry.
Regards!!

Of the old school guys you have to add Drobny as he holds the all time record for the most clay titles (well over 90!), Wilding as he was almost never beaten on clay and Hans Nusslein (was he the best pro on clay for the 1930's?)

 

[redrover]

Vilas was a great clay courter, especialy his consistency and being such a workhorse on the surface. However I would rate him behind Djokovic for sure and maybe even below Federer. Simply since I think both those guys probably give the top echelon guys better matches, and they also would likely beat him more often than not over a head to head clay series.

 

[redrover]

Also putting Vilas over Lendl or even Kuerten or Wilander on clay is enough that the individual should be punched just for epic stupidity.

 

[Meles]

Looking for information about the best clay tennis players of all time, I found an interesting article by Simon Briggs in The Telegraph, made in 2016. On the eve of Roland Garros that year, Simon made his ranking of the 20 best tennis players about clay of all time. The result was the following:


1- Rafa Nadal
2- Bjorn Borg
3- Guillermo Vilas
4- Ivan Lendl
5- Thomas Muster
6- Mats Wilander
7- Guga Kuerten
8- Ken Rosewall
9- Novak Djokovic
10- Manuel Orantes
11- Illie Nastase
12- Roger Federer
13- Rod Laver
14- Sergi Bruguera
15- Yannik Noah
16- Carlos Moya
17- Jim Courier
18- Juan Carlos Ferrero
19- Adriano Panatta
20- Jan Kodes

and there is the link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/t...ourt-players-of-all-time-by-Simon-Briggs.html

Although the article is quite new, some recent results (Nole won 2 Rome Opens in that period) can change this ranking significantly by Briggs. But not much. Here some short reviews - based mostly on clay titles, matches, majors and winning average - of the most notable for me in this list :


Nadal: Little to say. 11 Roland Garros, historical record by scandal. An absolutely insane 92.02% Winning percentage on clay. 81 consecutive vintages and 57 clay titles. The ONE, by level and also by mere consistency.

Borg: Also undisputed. His dominance in clay (6 Roland Garros in 8 years) was similar to that of Rafa, his Winning percentage of 86.20% is very very high. but the global numbers of Spanish are so big that they leave me no other option but to leave it in second place. It could be added in passing that unlike Nadal, Borg was practically invincible in both clay and grass but that does not mean anything in this evaluation.

Vilas: I would tie him with Lendl whitout problem. He does not have so many Clay Majors, it's true. He won 1 Roland Garros and 1 US Open played in Forest Hills on Clay, both in their formidable season of 1977. But if it werent for Borg (who beat him in the 1975 and 78 RG finals) he would have FOUR. However the overall statistics of the "Bull of the Pampas" are simply colossal: A great Winning Percentage of 79.79%. His 679 clay victories are a record practically impossible to overcome by someone in the future (Nadal currently has 415). 49 titles, record only surpassed by Nadal, and a streak 53 consecutive wins for the pioneer of the "tweener" (or "Grand Willy", if you will), also surpassed only by Rafa (81). Very similar style to Nadal and Borg, but come on, I play the same era as the Swede (who practically did everything the same, but faster), and that definitely counted against him ...

Lendl: with 28 titles in clay and 329 games wins, is far from the numbers of Vilas. But he won 3 Roland Garros, and his Winning Percentge is quite better: 81.03%. As I said, I do not decide between him and the Argentine.

Muster: the "King Of Clay" of the '90s. third in the ranking of tournaments won with 40, but falls a bit in the Winnig Percentage: 77.03%. His only victory at Roland Garros 95 seems little for his undeniable level as a clay player.

Djokovic: Well, I do not know if I raised it too much, we'll see ... Nole is practically very good on any surface, and maybe that's why he played more in others. Maybe that's also why its 14 clay titles. A single Roland Garros? But he played other 3 finals! 2 against Nadal! And its Winning percentage 79.37% is just inferior to that of Vilas and superior to that of Muster.

Rosewall: Ken could be higher or lower depending on the criteria. Without denying that he is one of the greatest of all time, it is also true that a large part of his career was in an era with less gobal competition than now (read less elite world tennis players). His first Roland Garros in 1954 was as an amateur, so his value is significantly lower. But he also won it in 1968, the first year of the Open Era, and before Laver, nothing less. To that we must add 4 French Pro Open (58-60-61-62) on clay, which was the "real" Major during those years. But we already said, lower level of competition, and a total 74.12% Winning Percentage that does not help much. Let each one decide ...

Wilander: It could also go up or down. 3 Roland Garros and 2 more finals. Impress in that aspect. 264 victories quite well. 76.74% Winning Percentage, similar to Rosewall. 7 total titles in clay, little here, too little really.

Laver: I have to go up a bit to one of the GOAT, yes or yes. 1 Roland Garros amateur. 1 Open Era Roland Garros (1969, the year of his second Grand Slam). No Major Pro in clay. 7 clay titles in the Open era, but a total of 53 in his entire career. And a great 79,08% Winning Percentage total although in the Open it was quite low: 76%. Again, times and levels of competition are mixed.

Federer: I have to evaluate the other GOAT, yes or yes. Some think he was (is) mediocre on clay just for being fantastic on other surfaces. Big mistake. It is only necessary to mention that he plays against Nadal (and he lost 4 Roland Garros finals to him), that's why he only has one single French Open. Why is not it higher then? 11 titles in clay and 75.89% Winning Average. Too little compared to the specialists above.

Kuerten: Another case similar to Wilander. The Brazilian charismatic triumphed in 3 Roland Garros and won 20 titles. But his irregularity in clay is reflected in his 181 victories and 78 total defeats for a "small" 69% 88 Winning Average.

Nastase: 77.38% Winning Percentage and 31 total titles, large number. But a single Roland Garros (against Pilic), and another lost final (against Kodes). Great player, although his was more to play the Masters ...

Orantes: Another specialist: 30 titles and 77% Winning Average. He lost his only Roland Garros final in 1974 against Borg.

The others on the list:

Brugera: 2 Roland Garros (93-94 anteCourier and Berasategui) 13 clay titles, 69% winning Average.

Noah: 1 Roland Garros (1983), 12 clay titles, 74% Winning Average.

Moya: 1 Roland Garros (1998), 16 clay titles. 70% Winning Average.

Courier: 2 Roland Garros (91-92), 3 clay titles. 69% Winning Average.

Ferrero: 1 Roland Garros, 13 clay titles, 73% Winninng Average.

Kodes: 2 Roland Garros (71-72), 5 clay titles, 69% Winning Average.

Panatta: 1 Roland Garros, 8n clay titles, 69% Winning Average. The only player to beat Borg in the French Open.



Other old players that I would easilly add:

Tony Trabert: 2 Majors Pro (56-59) plus 2 Roland Garros amateurs (54-55) 71,76% Winning Average.

Henry Cochet: 4 Roland Garros amateurs (26-28-30-32), 1 French Open Pro (36), 65 clay titles !!!!! 82.79% Winning Average !! Again, other era but ...

René Lacoste: 3 Roland Garros amateurs (25-27-29), but none French Pro. 13 clay titles. 87.34% Winning Average !!!! Nice t-shirts, btw ...

Jean Borotra: 3 Roland Garros amaterus (28-29-34). None French Pro. 19 clay titles. 82.72 Winning Average !!





Other players that do not pass my cut, but also could be:

Pancho Gonzales: another GOAT. 27 clay titles but 71.34% Winning Average.

André Agassi: 1 Roland Garros, 7 clay titles, 72.73% Winning Average

Andy Murray: 1 final of Roland Garros. 3 clay titles, 69.93% Winning Average.

José Luis Clerc: 21 clay titles. 77.44% Wining Average.

Marcelo Ríos: 9 clay titles. 66.23% Winning Average.

Guillermo Coria: 1 final of Roland Garros, 8 clay titles, 71,66% Winning Average

Gaston Gaudio: 1 Roland Garros, 8 clay Titles, 69.94% Winning Average

Alex Corretja: 10 clay titles, 66% 29% Winning Average.


sure I forgot some, If you name someone else, I dont get angry.
Regards!!

Thiem 75% career winning percentage on clay and rising. 79% for the last three years.

 

[Meles]

I'd add David Ferrer to the list of players not to pass the cut. He has, like Murray, 1 RG final but won 13 clay titles. He made 15 additional finals on clay (losing 8 to Rafa, 2 to Wawrinka and 2 to Ferrero). Arguably he is better than several of the folks to make your list on clay despite his mental issues at Roland Garros.

I'd also put Wawrinka in the discussion if you are going to even List Andy Murray. A win at Roland Garros, an additional Runner up. 7 clay titles (1 of which is a masters beating Federer in the final).

"only" 69% winning percentage on clay.

 

[Mainad]

It was 4 in a row but in 2014 he had a very soft draw and was absolutely destroyed by Nadal.

In 2014 it was a miracle he even managed to get as far as the semi-finals of a Slam and nobody would have predicted it would be Roland Garros!

 

[Meles]

Agree with NatF about Vilas being too high. The guy was great but I think clearly inferior to others such as Lendl. Vilas was trashed by Borg both times they played at RG. At least Federer and Novak managed to take sets off Nadal, who arguably played at a higher level than Borg, when they played at RG.

It's just very hard to rank clay courters because we don't really know what effect Borg and Nadal had on their respective eras. Maybe Djokovic and Federer would have had multiple RGs without Nadal but equally the rest of the clay field has been pretty poor during this era and they may have struggled with deeper fields. It's all speculation

Just recalculate winning percentage excluding Borg matches or Nadal matches. Ferrer is 451-204 on clay, but 2-19 versus Nadal. So 449-185 w/o Nadal which is 70.82% winning percentage versus 68.85% with Nadal. This might be the most extreme example so impact on others less.

 

[Towny]

Just recalculate winning percentage excluding Borg matches or Nadal matches. Ferrer is 451-204 on clay, but 6-25 versus Nadal. So 445-179 w/o Nadal which is 71.31% winning percentage versus 68.85% with Nadal. This might be the most extreme example so impact on others less

You can, but you can't be sure how accurate it would be. Ferrer may just have easily have lost to whomever he might have played instead of Nadal. Even in a final, like RG13, Novak realistically would have beaten Ferrer so that still counts as a loss. And that's if you make winning percentage the metric of clay court ranking. It's a factor, but I would weight RG titles much higher

 

[metsman]

Just recalculate winning percentage excluding Borg matches or Nadal matches. Ferrer is 451-204 on clay, but 6-25 versus Nadal. So 445-179 w/o Nadal which is 71.31% winning percentage versus 68.85% with Nadal. This might be the most extreme example so impact on others less.

ferrer did not beat nadal 6 times on clay lol

 

[Towny]

Ferrer is 451-204 on clay, but 6-25 versus Nadal

Also, a very minor point but Ferrer is 6-25 against Nadal overall. He's 2-19 against Nadal on clay

 

[Meles]

ferrer did not beat nadal 6 times on clay lol

My bad that was 6-25 career. fixing post......

 

[vex]

Unpopular opinion but I actually think Fed and Djoker are rated too LOW on this list. Rafa has just skewed this entire generation and wrecked Fed and Djoker's clay results. But if you put prime Djoker and Rafa on the court at RG it was a battle ... its just that Rafa would edge out the battle. Doesn't mean that Lendl was a better clay courter than Djoker and Fed just because Rafa beasted this era.

** I will say its hard to compare any of these guys due to different racquets, ect.

 

[Meles]

You can, but you can't be sure how accurate it would be. Ferrer may just have easily have lost to whomever he might have played instead of Nadal. Even in a final, like RG13, Novak realistically would have beaten Ferrer so that still counts as a loss. And that's if you make winning percentage the metric of clay court ranking. It's a factor, but I would weight RG titles much higher

Fixed. Its just something to put things in better perspective. Gives you a range. The other thing that is a factor is a player like Federer who probably strictly played Masters 1000s on clay and RG for most of his career. Would be worth for modern players to do record at Masters 1000. Filtering this for a player like Vilas would be a lot of work and probably not many tournaments back then as big as today's master 1000s. Career winning percentage at RG might satisfy those who rate majors very highly. That can be done with click of a few buttons for play from 1968 onward.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Unpopular opinion but I actually think Fed and Djoker are rated too LOW on this list. Rafa has just skewed this entire generation and wrecked Fed and Djoker's clay results. But if you put prime Djoker and Rafa on the court at RG it was a battle ... its just that Rafa would edge out the battle. Doesn't mean that Lendl was a better clay courter than Djoker and Fed just because Rafa beasted this era.

** I will say its hard to compare any of these guys due to different racquets, ect.

It is the correct opinion and supported by evidence.

Pretty plain to see, especially in the case of Djokovic.

 

[RF-18]

Unpopular opinion but I actually think Fed and Djoker are rated too LOW on this list. Rafa has just skewed this entire generation and wrecked Fed and Djoker's clay results. But if you put prime Djoker and Rafa on the court at RG it was a battle ... its just that Rafa would edge out the battle. Doesn't mean that Lendl was a better clay courter than Djoker and Fed just because Rafa beasted this era.

** I will say its hard to compare any of these guys due to different racquets, ect.

I agree. Djokovic should be at least top 5 or maybe even higher.

 

[Meles]

Unpopular opinion but I actually think Fed and Djoker are rated too LOW on this list. Rafa has just skewed this entire generation and wrecked Fed and Djoker's clay results. But if you put prime Djoker and Rafa on the court at RG it was a battle ... its just that Rafa would edge out the battle. Doesn't mean that Lendl was a better clay courter than Djoker and Fed just because Rafa beasted this era.

** I will say its hard to compare any of these guys due to different racquets, ect.

I also believe that they were for most of their careers (not all in Federer's case) smack in the new reality on clay where every player in the field had Polyester strings. This has turned RG into much more of a hard court event because hard court players with Poly are much more competitive. This means the field is loaded with more hard court players deeper in the event. Soderling and Federer one could easily label as hard court players who benefited from this change and maybe even Djokovic. You get an example of the difference today when you compare Masters 1000s and RG versus the South Amercian clay court swing which doesn't have a lot of hard court players. Its a different kettle of fish coming through these draws. Monfils, Nishikori, and Cilic are modern hard court players who have tried Latin America with rather horrible results. I'd submit with modern players versus the older clay courters we are comparing apples and oranges. We can rate Djoko, Fed, Ferrer, and Thiem with each other, but with players in the past its more dubious even though the courts are largely unchanged.

 

[Towny]

Fixed. Its just something to put things in better perspective. Gives you a range. The other thing that is a factor is a player like Federer who probably strictly played Masters 1000s on clay and RG for most of his career. Would be worth for modern players to do record at Masters 1000. Filtering this for a player like Vilas would be a lot of work and probably not many tournaments back then as big as today's master 1000s. Career winning percentage at RG might satisfy those who rate majors very highly. That can be done with click of a few buttons for play from 1968 onward

Yeah it's a really interesting comparison to make and those are some good ideas on how to make it. But it's plagued with difficulties. The way Vilas played clay tournaments is completely different from Federer for example and with ranking it depends what you prioritise. Peak level of play (and if so, how to measure that)? Overall 'big' titles? Win/loss ratio? RG performance? Longevity? Bit of a minefield tbh but always interesting to have a go.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Spots 1 - 19 get taken up by Rafa and Borg comes in at 20.

 

[abmk]

greatest in open era would be :

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Wilander
5. Kuerten

6 to 10 can be any of these 5 : Federer, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Djokovic, Vilas.

 

[bjsnider]

Chris Evert belongs in the #1 spot. If you don't believe me, look up her records on clay. They are mind-boggling.

 

[Meles]

Yeah it's a really interesting comparison to make and those are some good ideas on how to make it. But it's plagued with difficulties. The way Vilas played clay tournaments is completely different from Federer for example and with ranking it depends what you prioritise. Peak level of play (and if so, how to measure that)? Overall 'big' titles? Win/loss ratio? RG performance? Longevity? Bit of a minefield tbh but always interesting to have a go.

I study points stats and 90's into early 2000 clay players do not stack up at all versus Djoko and Fed. Really Lendl is the only player who bridged the divide between clay and hard courts in the 1980s and 1990s. Then you've got to go back to Laver and Rosewall before this, but then we're really talking grass and clay so Borg better on that count. The only player really unquestioned in this comparison is Nadal who devours all.

Nadal won 89.7% of matches at 250/500 level. 90.5% at Masters 1000.
Federer 71.8% and 74.7% at Masters
Djokovic 73.5% and 79.7% at Masters
dubious numbers because Federer and Djoko played so little clay at 250/500 level once they entered their prime. Its hard to compare with the likes of Vilas, Clerc, and Muster who could camp out on clay for most of the season which is simply not possible now.

Graphite rackets are the other big tech change so really hard to compare 80's play with what went before. It probably took a while for graphite to completely impact the tour so is it fair to compare Lendl/Wilander with the clay courters of the 1990s? This really brings us back to winning percentage and to try to compensate for the field then you head over to clay Elo:
Peak Elo Rating
1 1 ESP ESP Rafael Nadal Active 24-02-2014 Rio de Janeiro 2014 2664
2 1 SWE SWE Bjorn Borg 28-09-1981 Geneva 1981 2631
3 1 USA USA Ivan Lendl 16-05-1988 Rome 1988 2546
4 1 SRB SRB Novak Djokovic Active 06-06-2016 Roland Garros 2016 2535
5 1 ARG ARG Guillermo Vilas 28-11-1977 Buenos Aires 1977 2486
6 2 ARG ARG Jose Luis Clerc 09-10-1981 US Open 1981 2443
7 1 AUT AUT Thomas Muster 29-04-1996 Monte Carlo Masters 1996 2443
8 2 SUI SUI Roger Federer Active 25-09-2009 Davis Cup WG 2009 2442
9 2 USA USA Jimmy Connors 13-08-1979 Indianapolis 1979 2439
10 1 SWE SWE Mats Wilander 31-07-1987 Bastad 1987 2426
11 1 AUS AUS Ken Rosewall 10-06-1968 Roland Garros 1968 2410
12 3 GBR GBR Andy Murray Active 06-06-2016 Roland Garros 2016 2406
13 1 AUS AUS Rod Laver 11-06-1969 Roland Garros 1969 2395
14 1 ROU ROU Ilie Nastase 15-10-1973 Barcelona 1973 2390
15 1 BRA BRA Gustavo Kuerten 23-07-2001 Stuttgart 2001 2385
16 1 ESP ESP Sergi Bruguera 08-08-1994 Prague 1994 2377
17 3 ESP ESP David Ferrer Active 17-02-2014 Buenos Aires 2014 2377
18 2 USA USA John McEnroe 11-06-1984 Roland Garros 1984 2349
19 2 FRA FRA Yannick Noah 06-06-1983 Roland Garros 1983 2348
20 1 ESP ESP Manuel Orantes 10-09-1975 US Open 1975 2347

One could also consult games won%:
1 ESP ESP Rafael Nadal Active 64.14%
2 SWE SWE Bjorn Borg 62.58%
3 SWE SWE Kent Carlsson 60.20%
4 USA USA Ivan Lendl 59.92%
5 ARG ARG Guillermo Vilas 59.85%
6 AUS AUS Ken Rosewall 59.72%
7 AUS AUS Rod Laver 59.50%
8 ESP ESP Manuel Orantes 59.45%
9 ROU ROU Ilie Nastase 58.83%
10 ESP ESP Manuel Santana 58.72%
11 SRB SRB Novak Djokovic Active 58.61%
12 ARG ARG Jose Luis Clerc 58.57%
13 USA USA Jimmy Connors 58.48%
14 ESP ESP Andres Gimeno 58.03%
15 SWE SWE Mats Wilander 57.80%
16 AUT AUT Thomas Muster 57.63%
17 USA USA Eddie Dibbs 57.56%
18 USA USA Andre Agassi 57.50%
19 USA USA John McEnroe 57.17%
20 SUI SUI Roger Federer Active 57.01%

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Bull19ve - Slam 19 will be at RG '19

 

[Druss]

greatest in open era would be :

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Wilander
5. Kuerten

6 to 10 can be any of these 5 : Federer, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Djokovic, Vilas.

How do you think Wilander would have fared against 1995 Muster?

 

[travlerajm]

How do you think Wilander would have fared against 1995 Muster?

I think Wilander would have destroyed a one-dimensional player like Muster.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

I agree, thanks for starting a decent new topic.

My only quibble is that I feel you're devaluing RG and elevating other clay events at RG's expense. Even though I love Muster and he was a clay beast, he shouldn't ever be placed ahead of Mats and Guga, both of whom won three RG's to Muster's one. I also think you've placed Djokovic way, way too high. Even though he dominated Rafa on the clay in 2011, he has won one FO and should therefore historically not be ahead of Courier or Brugera who won two FO's.

He has 8 master title and many Rg final and semi.
It is just like saying Stan had better career than Hewitt

 

[abmk]

How do you think Wilander would have fared against 1995 Muster?

If its at RG, I think Wilander would've found a way to beat Muster.
Outside of RG, could honestly go either way.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Regardless of your stance Djokovic is in historical top-10 hands down! And while even as Novak fan i still rank him at almost very bottom of the top-10 of clay court specialists, i still think he barely makes the cut...with that said, he still can improve in these rankings if he wins his 2nd French and a couple more clay court series masters tournaments! If he does that - its between him Lendl and Vilas for the third place all-time...right now as it currently stands - he is at the very bottom of my estimates, even for someone who is tied with Borg and Lendl for masters clay court series record with 8 titles each at the second place next to only Nadal...

 

[NatF]

In 2014 it was a miracle he even managed to get as far as the semi-finals of a Slam and nobody would have predicted it would be Roland Garros!

Yeah guy was really below his best all year after his surgery.

 

[ChrisRF]

Unpopular opinion but I actually think Fed and Djoker are rated too LOW on this list. Rafa has just skewed this entire generation and wrecked Fed and Djoker's clay results. But if you put prime Djoker and Rafa on the court at RG it was a battle ... its just that Rafa would edge out the battle. Doesn't mean that Lendl was a better clay courter than Djoker and Fed just because Rafa beasted this era.

** I will say its hard to compare any of these guys due to different racquets, ect.

Why unpopular? They could very well even be #2 without Nadal and without each other. I’m quite sure with Borg’s competition they would have 6 or more RG titles. Even against Borg himself I see them winning more often then not. I have watched Borg’s great finals in the last off-season, and I must say he couldn’t really have troubled them offensive.

Pure speculation, of course, but really Rafa overshadows everything else. And as you said, the issue of different racquets and therefore different styles is difficult to estimate as well.

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

Is it just about results?

Kuerten remindes of Räikkönen:
Superb talent, just loves his sports and if it doesn't work out, don't care to much.
When Guga played on clay (and especially in RG), I just felt happy to see a player doing what he loves most.

I like that kind of easy going "It's just a game"-aura in sports much more than some 100-%-"I would rather die than let you win and plan my victories with more emphasis on details than any NATO operation"-grunt.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

#1 Tommy 'GOATredo' Robredo

 

[KG1965]

Looking for information about the best clay tennis players of all time, I found an interesting article by Simon Briggs in The Telegraph, made in 2016. On the eve of Roland Garros that year, Simon made his ranking of the 20 best tennis players about clay of all time. The result was the following:


1- Rafa Nadal
2- Bjorn Borg
3- Guillermo Vilas
4- Ivan Lendl
5- Thomas Muster
6- Mats Wilander
7- Guga Kuerten
8- Ken Rosewall
9- Novak Djokovic
10- Manuel Orantes
11- Illie Nastase
12- Roger Federer
13- Rod Laver
14- Sergi Bruguera
15- Yannik Noah
16- Carlos Moya
17- Jim Courier
18- Juan Carlos Ferrero
19- Adriano Panatta
20- Jan Kodes

and there is the link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/t...ourt-players-of-all-time-by-Simon-Briggs.html

Although the article is quite new, some recent results (Nole won 2 Rome Opens in that period) can change this ranking significantly by Briggs. But not much. Here some short reviews - based mostly on clay titles, matches, majors and winning average - of the most notable for me in this list :


Nadal: Little to say. 11 Roland Garros, historical record by scandal. An absolutely insane 92.02% Winning percentage on clay. 81 consecutive vintages and 57 clay titles. The ONE, by level and also by mere consistency.

Borg: Also undisputed. His dominance in clay (6 Roland Garros in 8 years) was similar to that of Rafa, his Winning percentage of 86.20% is very very high. but the global numbers of Spanish are so big that they leave me no other option but to leave it in second place. It could be added in passing that unlike Nadal, Borg was practically invincible in both clay and grass but that does not mean anything in this evaluation.

Vilas: I would tie him with Lendl whitout problem. He does not have so many Clay Majors, it's true. He won 1 Roland Garros and 1 US Open played in Forest Hills on Clay, both in their formidable season of 1977. But if it werent for Borg (who beat him in the 1975 and 78 RG finals) he would have FOUR. However the overall statistics of the "Bull of the Pampas" are simply colossal: A great Winning Percentage of 79.79%. His 679 clay victories are a record practically impossible to overcome by someone in the future (Nadal currently has 415). 49 titles, record only surpassed by Nadal, and a streak 53 consecutive wins for the pioneer of the "tweener" (or "Grand Willy", if you will), also surpassed only by Rafa (81). Very similar style to Nadal and Borg, but come on, I play the same era as the Swede (who practically did everything the same, but faster), and that definitely counted against him ...

Lendl: with 28 titles in clay and 329 games wins, is far from the numbers of Vilas. But he won 3 Roland Garros, and his Winning Percentge is quite better: 81.03%. As I said, I do not decide between him and the Argentine.

Muster: the "King Of Clay" of the '90s. third in the ranking of tournaments won with 40, but falls a bit in the Winnig Percentage: 77.03%. His only victory at Roland Garros 95 seems little for his undeniable level as a clay player.

Djokovic: Well, I do not know if I raised it too much, we'll see ... Nole is practically very good on any surface, and maybe that's why he played more in others. Maybe that's also why its 14 clay titles. A single Roland Garros? But he played other 3 finals! 2 against Nadal! And its Winning percentage 79.37% is just inferior to that of Vilas and superior to that of Muster.

Rosewall: Ken could be higher or lower depending on the criteria. Without denying that he is one of the greatest of all time, it is also true that a large part of his career was in an era with less gobal competition than now (read less elite world tennis players). His first Roland Garros in 1954 was as an amateur, so his value is significantly lower. But he also won it in 1968, the first year of the Open Era, and before Laver, nothing less. To that we must add 4 French Pro Open (58-60-61-62) on clay, which was the "real" Major during those years. But we already said, lower level of competition, and a total 74.12% Winning Percentage that does not help much. Let each one decide ...

Wilander: It could also go up or down. 3 Roland Garros and 2 more finals. Impress in that aspect. 264 victories quite well. 76.74% Winning Percentage, similar to Rosewall. 7 total titles in clay, little here, too little really.

Laver: I have to go up a bit to one of the GOAT, yes or yes. 1 Roland Garros amateur. 1 Open Era Roland Garros (1969, the year of his second Grand Slam). No Major Pro in clay. 7 clay titles in the Open era, but a total of 53 in his entire career. And a great 79,08% Winning Percentage total although in the Open it was quite low: 76%. Again, times and levels of competition are mixed.

Federer: I have to evaluate the other GOAT, yes or yes. Some think he was (is) mediocre on clay just for being fantastic on other surfaces. Big mistake. It is only necessary to mention that he plays against Nadal (and he lost 4 Roland Garros finals to him), that's why he only has one single French Open. Why is not it higher then? 11 titles in clay and 75.89% Winning Average. Too little compared to the specialists above.

Kuerten: Another case similar to Wilander. The Brazilian charismatic triumphed in 3 Roland Garros and won 20 titles. But his irregularity in clay is reflected in his 181 victories and 78 total defeats for a "small" 69% 88 Winning Average.

Nastase: 77.38% Winning Percentage and 31 total titles, large number. But a single Roland Garros (against Pilic), and another lost final (against Kodes). Great player, although his was more to play the Masters ...

Orantes: Another specialist: 30 titles and 77% Winning Average. He lost his only Roland Garros final in 1974 against Borg.

The others on the list:

Brugera: 2 Roland Garros (93-94 anteCourier and Berasategui) 13 clay titles, 69% winning Average.

Noah: 1 Roland Garros (1983), 12 clay titles, 74% Winning Average.

Moya: 1 Roland Garros (1998), 16 clay titles. 70% Winning Average.

Courier: 2 Roland Garros (91-92), 3 clay titles. 69% Winning Average.

Ferrero: 1 Roland Garros, 13 clay titles, 73% Winninng Average.

Kodes: 2 Roland Garros (71-72), 5 clay titles, 69% Winning Average.

Panatta: 1 Roland Garros, 8n clay titles, 69% Winning Average. The only player to beat Borg in the French Open.



Other old players that I would easilly add:

Tony Trabert: 2 Majors Pro (56-59) plus 2 Roland Garros amateurs (54-55) 71,76% Winning Average.

Henry Cochet: 4 Roland Garros amateurs (26-28-30-32), 1 French Open Pro (36), 65 clay titles !!!!! 82.79% Winning Average !! Again, other era but ...

René Lacoste: 3 Roland Garros amateurs (25-27-29), but none French Pro. 13 clay titles. 87.34% Winning Average !!!! Nice t-shirts, btw ...

Jean Borotra: 3 Roland Garros amaterus (28-29-34). None French Pro. 19 clay titles. 82.72 Winning Average !!





Other players that do not pass my cut, but also could be:

Pancho Gonzales: another GOAT. 27 clay titles but 71.34% Winning Average.

André Agassi: 1 Roland Garros, 7 clay titles, 72.73% Winning Average

Andy Murray: 1 final of Roland Garros. 3 clay titles, 69.93% Winning Average.

José Luis Clerc: 21 clay titles. 77.44% Wining Average.

Marcelo Ríos: 9 clay titles. 66.23% Winning Average.

Guillermo Coria: 1 final of Roland Garros, 8 clay titles, 71,66% Winning Average

Gaston Gaudio: 1 Roland Garros, 8 clay Titles, 69.94% Winning Average

Alex Corretja: 10 clay titles, 66% 29% Winning Average.


sure I forgot some, If you name someone else, I dont get angry.
Regards!!

IMHO:
- Djokovic & Federer are to be inserted higher,
- Vilas is too high,
- Connors is in the Top 15 easily (1 slam + others 9 bigs + 2 runner up slam).

 

[KG1965]

3 SWE SWE Kent Carlsson 60.20%

Monster. Alien. Superhuman.

 

[redrover]

I will just do my 1960-onwards rankings then try and go from there.

Open Era only

1. Nadal
-----gap-----
2. Borg
-----another gap-----
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
------another gap------
6. Rosewall
7. Djokovic
8. Laver
9. Courier- I thought of ranking him higher but he doesnt have that many clay showings outside of RG itself
10. Muster- I thought of ranking him lower but his clay dominance of 95-96 was just insanely scary, despite the shock loss at RG 96. Plus prime to prime you know he beats Bruguera most of the time.
11. Bruguera
12. Federer
13. Vilas- IMO overrated, sorry.
--------6 to 13 are fairly close and tightly bunched IMO, then another gap down-----
14. Ferrero- although prime to prime he beats Vilas, and possibly Bruguera, Federer, and even Djokovic and Muster.
15. dunno Kodes, Moya, Agassi, or Nastase maybe.

I will do my all time later, but those are harder since it is harder to evaluate a lot of the pre Open Era, especialy pre 1950, players.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Where is Sampras? The guy won Rome.

 

[NatF]

I will just do my 1960-onwards rankings then try and go from there.

Open Era only

1. Nadal
-----gap-----
2. Borg
-----another gap-----
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
------another gap------
6. Rosewall
7. Djokovic
8. Laver
9. Courier- I thought of ranking him higher but he doesnt have that many clay showings outside of RG itself
10. Muster- I thought of ranking him lower but his clay dominance of 95-96 was just insanely scary, despite the shock loss at RG 96. Plus prime to prime you know he beats Bruguera most of the time.
11. Bruguera
12. Federer
13. Vilas- IMO overrated, sorry.
--------6 to 13 are fairly close and tightly bunched IMO, then another gap down-----
14. Ferrero- although prime to prime he beats Vilas, and possibly Bruguera, Federer, and even Djokovic and Muster.
15. dunno Kodes, Moya, Agassi, or Nastase maybe.

I will do my all time later, but those are harder since it is harder to evaluate a lot of the pre Open Era, especialy pre 1950, players.

Djokovic is a bit too far ahead of Federer IMO.

But otherwise not too disagreeable.