abmk
Bionic Poster
that's another account of NadalAgassi or Davey25 or .........
whose mission it has been since time immemorial to keep comparing Fed/Djoko on clay and on many occasions try to put down Fed (if I remember correctly !)
WHO ARE THE 20 BEST CLAY COURT PLAYERS EVER?
- Thread starter mtincoronel76
- Start date
that's another account of NadalAgassi or Davey25 or .........
whose mission it has been since time immemorial to keep comparing Fed/Djoko on clay and on many occasions try to put down Fed (if I remember correctly !)
Well as I said 6-13 are really all close and could go in any order really. So the number gap cant be too much read into. For instance I didnt even think of Lendl 3rd, Kuerten 4th, Wilander 5th, was automatic, and I believe the gap between each of those to the next is more than the gap of the entire 6 to 13 group. And of course the gap from Nadal down to Borg (due to the huge achievements gap, even if playing level is probably close) and even more Borg down to Lendl is far more than the gap of the entire 6-13 group.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Basically when comparing that group there are always so many pro and cons. For instance Bruguera vs Muster vs Courier, in the head to head match ups Courier >>> Muster, Bruguera > Courier (this one though is smaller which is key as I will get to in a moment), and Muster >>> Bruguera. So one reason for my ranking of those three is I put all 3 together and the head to head match ups with all 3 combined tend to go Courier > Muster > Bruguera despite that each has 1 they do better in. Then comparing them beyond that Courier and Bruguera are clearly better than Muster at RG, but Muster is far better than both on the regular clay circuit. In peak play Courier is probably the highest, although you could argue Muster, in consistency Muster is highest and Courier lowest, and in longevity on the surface Bruguera is highest. So you could arguably rank the trio in any order, it just depends what you value.
Djokovic and Federer similarily are behind and ahead of Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Vilas, all in different areas, which made the whole ranking difficult, although comparing Djokovic to Federer directly I dont see anything that would or even could put Federer ahead of Djokovic at this point. Their RG records are about identical, the Masters and overall clay records outside RG definitely favor Djokovic at this point, and the combined Nadal/Djokovic/Federer match up which is similar to the one I evaluated of Courier/ Burguera/Muster and was part of my ranking order for that trio, favors Djokovic considerably entirely since he is so much better vs Nadal than Federer is while the Federer vs Djokovic match up is fairly even and fairly inconclusive given the lack of head to head meetings on clay.
Djokovic and Federer similarily are behind and ahead of Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Vilas, all in different areas, which made the whole ranking difficult, although comparing Djokovic to Federer directly I dont see anything that would or even could put Federer ahead of Djokovic at this point. Their RG records are about identical, the Masters and overall clay records outside RG definitely favor Djokovic at this point, and the combined Nadal/Djokovic/Federer match up which is similar to the one I evaluated of Courier/ Burguera/Muster and was part of my ranking order for that trio, favors Djokovic considerably entirely since he is so much better vs Nadal than Federer is while the Federer vs Djokovic match up is fairly even and fairly inconclusive given the lack of head to head meetings on clay.
game..set..match
Semi-Pro
if not for the buttpicker, federer would be #1 or #2 behind Borg. smh
Djokovic would be as well. However while both would be much higher, both would also be much higher than they deserve in this scenario. Neither is a better clay courter than someone like Lendl or even Kuerten at his peak. No way. It just shows how weak the clay field is outside of Nadal that both would have achieved that much without Nadal. If Nadal didnt have 11 RG titles which is too big a gap to ignore, I would even consider ranking him only on par with Borg as the clay field of today is so incredibly weak, but it is not like Borg played in a strong clay field either so it is less of a factor compared to him I guess.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
My list would be something like this:
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Rosewall
4. Lendl
5. Cochet
6. Kuerten
7. Wilander
8. Lacoste
9. Wilding
10. Courier
11. Drobny
12. Trabert
13. Novak Djokovic
14. Federer
15. Bruguera
16. Vilas
17. Muster
18. Ferrero
19. Kodes
20. Von Cramm
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Rosewall
4. Lendl
5. Cochet
6. Kuerten
7. Wilander
8. Lacoste
9. Wilding
10. Courier
11. Drobny
12. Trabert
13. Novak Djokovic
14. Federer
15. Bruguera
16. Vilas
17. Muster
18. Ferrero
19. Kodes
20. Von Cramm
SeeingDusk
Hall of Fame
if it weren't for nadal, federer would've had 6 RGs, from 2005-2009, and 2011, which would've secured him in completing the Grand Slam in two consecutive years as well.
That looks good, except I think Drobny and maybe Trabert seem a bit high. I dont think they are better than Djokovic, Federer, Bruguera, even Muster really. On my list they would probably slot just in front of Vilas and Ferrero at best, maybe not even there.
Why do you think Drobny and Trabert were that great on clay? Although as I said it is harder to evaluate old time players, but they definitely benefitted from the split fields for the clay success they did have, which still wasnt that amazing.
Also is Rosewall really #3? That seems kind of high for him. I guess achivements wise there is a case, but as always for Rosewall he doesnt seem to compare as favorably when it comes to level of play. Then again most of my list was 80% achievements so I guess I should rank Rosewall higher along that logic. Laver did well against him on clay though, he just doesnt feel like a 3rd to only Borg and Nadal type. I think Lendl was more dominant and imposing on the surface. Kuerten before his hip problems, and in his day Wilding and Cochet too.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Carllson really? I was aware of the name, and literally this is all the guy did at slams:
French Open 4R (1987, 1988)
US Open 1R (1986)
That is insane; only played one slam outside RG. Retired at age 22. 9-8 in ATP level clay finals; that is a ton of finals especially since he stopped making them at a young 21. Beat Leconte badly in one final (Hamburg) and beat Muster in best of 5 Barcelona final. Better than Muster at the same age.
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
Beat Russia in Davis Cup as well.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Now that I see how great Carlsson was I'm thinking games won on clay is fair measure:
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%
The problem is the USA players playing on green clay. Let me see if those matches can be eliminated...nope. Just have to eyeball out most of the US players for green clay:
Games Won (sans US green clay players):
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 ESP ESP Andres Gimeno 58.03%
14 SWE SWE Mats Wilander 57.80%
15 AUT AUT Thomas Muster 57.63%
16 SUI SUI Roger Federer Active 57.01%
17 ARG ARG Guillermo Coria 56.93%
18 FRA FRA Yannick Noah 56.52%
19 MEX MEX Raul Ramirez 56.45%
20 ESP ESP Sergi Bruguera 56.35%
21 USA USA Jim Courier 56.33%
22 ESP ESP Juan Carlos Ferrero 56.15%
37 BRA BRA Gustavo Kuerten 55.60%
Gimeno was an awfully good clay court player and record post 1968 proves it. Its hard to deny Laver and Rosewall their due when they won at such a high rate later in their career when most players are washed up on clay.
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%
The problem is the USA players playing on green clay. Let me see if those matches can be eliminated...nope. Just have to eyeball out most of the US players for green clay:
Games Won (sans US green clay players):
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 ESP ESP Andres Gimeno 58.03%
14 SWE SWE Mats Wilander 57.80%
15 AUT AUT Thomas Muster 57.63%
16 SUI SUI Roger Federer Active 57.01%
17 ARG ARG Guillermo Coria 56.93%
18 FRA FRA Yannick Noah 56.52%
19 MEX MEX Raul Ramirez 56.45%
20 ESP ESP Sergi Bruguera 56.35%
21 USA USA Jim Courier 56.33%
22 ESP ESP Juan Carlos Ferrero 56.15%
37 BRA BRA Gustavo Kuerten 55.60%
Gimeno was an awfully good clay court player and record post 1968 proves it. Its hard to deny Laver and Rosewall their due when they won at such a high rate later in their career when most players are washed up on clay.
Carllson really? I was aware of the name, and literally this is all the guy did at slams:
French Open 4R (1987, 1988)
US Open 1R (1986)
Not only did American players play on har tru.
At the American tournaments they also participated: Borg, Lendl, Vilas, Rosewall, Laver, Orantes, Nastase, Clerc, Noah, Ramirez.
It depends if you want to rank in clay or red clay.
It changes a lot.
Last edited:
They’re definitely neck and neck with Nole slightly more accomplished in terms of titles won. 5 places higher? Lol
Clay or only red clay ?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
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.
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.
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 !!!!!
René Lacoste: 3 Roland Garros amateurs (25-27-29), but none French Pro. 13 clay titles. 87.34% Winning Average !!!!
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!!
Meles
Bionic Poster
Well Connors would have to be on the list if we're including green clay. I don't think much of har tru. Just a budget surface. I'm amazed Houston event does not cough up for authentic red clay. All the tournaments in South America have very, very nice surfaces and yet America can't seem to afford real clay and hence has become a 2nd rate tennis power.Not only did American players play on har tru.
At the American tournaments they also participated: Borg, Lendl, Vilas, Rosewall, Laver, Orantes, Nastase, Clerc, Noah, Ramirez.
It depends if you want to rank in clay or red clay.
It changes a lot.
Meles
Bionic Poster
I think I'd seen him before just a little bit, that is one scary photo lol.....and his game at its best goes with it:
http://www.stretch.site/?videoUrl=h...DiAAebgD2c&scaleFactor=0.747&zoomFactor=1.000
Now I remember firmly why I did not willingly watch his matches.
What I want to say is that if you don't consider the courts in har-tru also Borg, Lendl, Vilas, Rosewall, Laver, Orantes, Nastase, Clerc, Noah, Ramirez won less matches (and titles).Well Connors would have to be on the list if we're including green clay. I don't think much of har tru. Just a budget surface. I'm amazed Houston event does not cough up for authentic red clay. All the tournaments in South America have very, very nice surfaces and yet America can't seem to afford real clay and hence has become a 2nd rate tennis power.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Good discusiion here.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
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.
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.
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.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/third-greatest-clay-courter.291689/
Purplemonster
Hall of Fame
Federer ahead of Laver and Bruguera, comical.
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
Rosewall lol, you just know he'd get tremedously exploited in today's game. But I guessto be fair to all, you have to compare everyone with the players of your era
One thing people keep bringing up when ranking both Federer and Djokovic is "oh they are so unlucky they faced Nadal." However that is a very one sided view and only considers part of the truth. The clay field today overall is super weak, outside of Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic there is literally nobody. Nadal's French Open title count is already a sign of that, even the hands down clay GOAT should not have 11 French Opens or more likely 13 or 14 or 15 or whatever Nadal likely ends up with. Federer or Djokovic might have 4 or 5 French Opens right now without Nadal, and in Djokovic's case not even done yet, but they wouldnt win 4 or 5 French Opens in most eras that is for sure, in fact probably no era.
And if we create a hypothetical removing Nadal we should also create one removing everyones biggest competitor. So for Lendl and Wilander that would be removing each other, and both would now have 5 or 6 French Opens, atleast as many as Federer or Djokovic would have without Nadal, and the remaining overall clay field of their time is WAY deeper than the Federer/Djokovic one. I dont know exactly how many Vilas would have, I am not sure exactly how many times he lost to Borg at the French, but I believe there were atleast 3 times, so he might even have 4 French Opens without Borg. And again the clay field there is deeper and stronger than todays. Remove Kuerten's crippling hip problems and he wins atleast 5 or 6 French Opens, and that is without removing anyone, and a way tougher field than Federer/Djokovic ever faced (especialy without Nadal, what a total joke it becomes now).
So that idea to elevate Federer or Djokovic much, or any, is pretty delirious. Absolutely nobody should have either one higher than 6th or 7th in the Open Era at this point. If Djokovic wins a 2nd RG title just "maybe" there is a case for considering him for top 5, and even that is questionable.
And if we create a hypothetical removing Nadal we should also create one removing everyones biggest competitor. So for Lendl and Wilander that would be removing each other, and both would now have 5 or 6 French Opens, atleast as many as Federer or Djokovic would have without Nadal, and the remaining overall clay field of their time is WAY deeper than the Federer/Djokovic one. I dont know exactly how many Vilas would have, I am not sure exactly how many times he lost to Borg at the French, but I believe there were atleast 3 times, so he might even have 4 French Opens without Borg. And again the clay field there is deeper and stronger than todays. Remove Kuerten's crippling hip problems and he wins atleast 5 or 6 French Opens, and that is without removing anyone, and a way tougher field than Federer/Djokovic ever faced (especialy without Nadal, what a total joke it becomes now).
So that idea to elevate Federer or Djokovic much, or any, is pretty delirious. Absolutely nobody should have either one higher than 6th or 7th in the Open Era at this point. If Djokovic wins a 2nd RG title just "maybe" there is a case for considering him for top 5, and even that is questionable.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
I agree the truth is somewhere in the middle. Having Nadal as a competitor lowers the accomplishments of his rivals compared to what it would be in a normal era but without him it would make them too high since then it would be a very weak field.
Yeah I agree. I have no problem with bringing up the Nadal factor as long as the other side of equation is brought up as a counterbalance, and of course Federer/ Djokovic fanboys conveniently forget that.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Well I'd rate Nadal, Borg and Guga above either. But not sure about Lendl etc that's where it becomes superior accomplishments vs superior competition
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Definitively I'd say rafa, guga,vilas,borg all above Novak and roger. Lendl probably but not confident hed beat them. Id put Novak above roger
I can see your point but Lendl did face Wilander, who while no Nadal is a top competitor. And as I mentioned earlier just removing Wilander he is probably up to 5 French Open titles (most likely wins both 82 and 85) which is probably the same as Federer and Djokovic each have without Nadal. So even with NAdal >>>> Wilander negated, neither Federer or Djokovic are probably ahead, and the overall clay field then, while not great, is certainly still deeper and stronger after the top 3 than the current era one.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Thanks for the lists. I see things a little bit differently. Sorry I got carried away and ended up with 23.
Considering real clay only:
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Cochet (9 clay court Majors - 4 French; 1 WHCC; 1 French Pro; 3 Davis Cup Challenge Round hat-tricks; and 10-2 singles on clay in D.C. Challenge Round (World Group Final); 3 Monte Carlo.
4. Lendl - 3 French (skipped RG twice at peak); 2 Italian, 2 Monte Carlo, 2 German (and skipped these three events several times), holder twice-over of "Clay Court Grand Slam" *
5. Kuerten - 3 French, 2 Monte Carlo, Italian and German, for Clay-Court Grand Slam; two hip surgeries ended career when in mid-twenties
6. Rosewall - 2 French and one final in only five appearances during career; 4 French Pro on Clay; British Hard Court; Geneva Gold Trophy; Trofeo Facis
7. Djokovic - 1 French in 4 hard-fought finals; 4 Italian, 2 Monte Carlo, 2 Madrid, for Clay Court Grand Slam; 7-7 versus Nadal on clay since 2011.
8. Drobny - More than 80 clay-court titles, per thetennisbase.com; 2 French in five finals (two five-set loses); 3 Italian, 2 Monte Carlo, German International, and first player to reach Clay-Cour Grand Slam; 4 British Hard Court; 18-1 Davis Cup Singles on Clay.
9. Lacoste - 3 French, 2 British Hard Court; 20-2 Davis Cup clay-court singles record; career ended at 25 due to illness.
10. Tilden - Approximately 75 clay court titles, per thetennisbase.com; 1 WHCC in only appearance; 1 French Pro; Italian, Monte Carlo, 7 U.S. Clay Court Championships; first appearance at Roland Garros at age 34, where he gained two finals and and SF in three appearances as amateur, and famously considered robbed of 1927 title, losing 7-9 in fifth after dubious late call by umpire Henri Cochet on match point.
11. Laver - 2 French; two Italian; two German; 1 British Hardcourt; Geneva Gold Trophy. Both French on way to Grand Slams; 1971 Italian was de facto world clay court championship.
12. Wilander - 3 French in five finals; Italian, 2 Monte Carlo; 20 clay titles
13. Federer - 1 French in 5 finals; 4 Hamburg/Madrid; zero Italian, zero MC. Second best clay court player 2005-08.
14. Cramm - 2 French in 3 finals in three years, 1934-36, before, prohibitions and politics prevented him from competing at RG in his prime, 1937-39; two Monte Carlo; four German International; 53-8 Davis Cup clay-court singles record.
15. Courier - 2 French in 3 finals in consecutive years, 2 consecutive Italian - 2nd French in dominating fashion, both Italians in dominating fashion.
16. Muster - Perhaps first to be called "King of Clay" for his dominance 1995-96. 40 Clay titles against only 5 losses in finals; 40-match win streak on the surface. 1 French; 3 Italian, 3 Monte Carlo. Skipped German Open during peak. Unrivalled courage.
17. Pietrangeli - second member of the Clay-Court Grand Slam club: 2 French, 2 Italian, 3 Monte Carlo, 1 German; approximately 50 clay-court titles; went 12-2 in singles on clay in leading Italy to D.C. Challenge Round in 1960 and 1961.
18. Trabert - give the devil his due: Two French amateurs; Two French Pros.
19. Vilas - give this devil his due, too: 1 French in 4 finals; 2 Monte Carlo (and a suspended, never completed final); 1 Italian, and 1 German, to be one of seven members of the Clay-Court Grand Slam club (Drobny, Pietrangeli, Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Kuerten, Nadal). I don't like this vainglorious good-for-little, but the man effectively won 81 straight matches on Clay, the streak being unfairly interrupted at 53 straight wins by the illegal spaghetti strung racket of Nasty Nastase, and then going on for another 28 straight matches. True, Vilas inflated his record on what we now call 250s, but the record shows he won a respectable number of the biggest clay tournaments. He also went 38-6 on the clay surface in Davis Cup singles.
20. Gimeno - Pro World Clay Court Champion by virtue of winning the Fred Perry Cup at the Barcelona Pro in 1966, and French Open champion in 1972 at 34-years of age; 1 Monte Carlo, 1 German International, 1 Geneva Gold Trophy, Finalist at last Roland Garros Pro, in 1962. No Pro Clay Court Major 1963-65, or 1967, his peak years. He was also 18-5 in Davis Cup, his action limited by being banned for a dozen years because he was a professional.
21. (tie) Hoad, Ferrero, Santana.
Hoad. A funny choice. Swept the German, Italian and French in 1956, falling short at Monte Carlo. But an impressive achievement, notwithstanding that Ken Rosewall was nowhere to be found, having been directed by the Australian authorities not to play those tournaments where he might well have the advantage on his mate. Won 2 Geneva Gold Trophy and twice finalist at the Roland Garros Pro, losing to Muscles.
Ferrero. Felled by illness, and injury, I hear, but don't know for a fact. With a French Open by age 23, on a 23-3 record, and wins over some big names, along with an Italian and 2 Monte Carlo Championships, Ferrero looked set to take over the mantel of the crippled Guga Kuerten. Juan Carlos was a first-class hard court and indoor player, almost sure to break through eventually at AO or USO. Then, it quickly fanished. Juan Carlos was 18-3 on clay in Davis Cup singles, being the boy hero of Spain's first Cup in 2000, with a 5-0 record, including wins over Kafelnikov, Safin, Rafter and Hewitt. WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED TO THIS IMPRESSIVE PLAYER? I heard he had shingles, but beyond that I don't know much.
Santana. A Davis Cup record too heroic to be ignored. 53-11 in D.C. singles rubbers on clay. Most impressively, he went 10-1 in singles (9-0 on clay) and 6-1 in doubles (6-0 on clay), in leading upstart Spain to the World Group Final and a very respectable showing on grass against perennial champion Australia. Manuel won 2 French and 1 Monte Carlo. Unlike most European clay-court specialists, Santana won on grass at Wimbledon, Forest Hills and Newport Casino, and on concrete at the Pacific Coast Championships. But his failure to win the Italian, making only one final in Rome, practically disqualifies him from consideration. Davis Cup is his calling card on clay.
itrium84
Hall of Fame
Thank you for this detailed list, I learned a lot about best clay court players from your post. Thumbs up.
Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
titoelcolombiano
Legend
1 - 19 is Rafa
20 is Borg
20 is Borg
BGod
G.O.A.T.
1- Rafa Nadal
2- Bjorn Borg
3- Ken Rosewall
4- Roger Federer
5- Mats Wilander
6- Ivan Lendl
7- Novak Djokovic
8- Guillermo Vilas
9- Rod Laver
10- Gustavo Kuerten
11- Jim Courier
12- Ilie Nastase
13- Sergi Bruguera
14- Jan Kodes
15- Stanislav Wawrinka
16- Andre Agassi
17- Thomas Muster
18- Juan Carlos Ferrero
19- Adriano Panatta
20- Manuel Orantes
Obviously there's a few outliers in my list I think I'll address. Thomas Muster is vastly overrated given the level of most titles. They were a joke. Guy made it to the quarters of the French three times, semifinal stage twice and won a single title. I can't ignore that and go with a few fistfuls of 250s right? In comparison, Agassi skipped a lot of clay Masters but was pretty damn consistent, he lost in 2 finals one of which he was too concerned with his toupe coming off and lost two additional semifinals to Wilander in 88 and Courier. Basically the guy was right there. Wawrinka is probably going to be criticized so high but let's get something straight outside his 2 finals at the French, he lost to Federer twice and Nadal another time. His losses to Murray and Tsonga are also far from what you'd call bad. Under-performing/not caring about the Masters can be excused. Rosewall being #3 might also raise some eyebrows but I urge you to look at his decimation in the pro majors, he was dynamite. And oh yes, maybe I'll get flack for the Roger pick. Frankly I don't care, the guy lose to the #1 five times wherein it's highly unlikely he loses to anyone else, so turn that 1 Slam into 6 and you see my point. Good day.
2- Bjorn Borg
3- Ken Rosewall
4- Roger Federer
5- Mats Wilander
6- Ivan Lendl
7- Novak Djokovic
8- Guillermo Vilas
9- Rod Laver
10- Gustavo Kuerten
11- Jim Courier
12- Ilie Nastase
13- Sergi Bruguera
14- Jan Kodes
15- Stanislav Wawrinka
16- Andre Agassi
17- Thomas Muster
18- Juan Carlos Ferrero
19- Adriano Panatta
20- Manuel Orantes
Obviously there's a few outliers in my list I think I'll address. Thomas Muster is vastly overrated given the level of most titles. They were a joke. Guy made it to the quarters of the French three times, semifinal stage twice and won a single title. I can't ignore that and go with a few fistfuls of 250s right? In comparison, Agassi skipped a lot of clay Masters but was pretty damn consistent, he lost in 2 finals one of which he was too concerned with his toupe coming off and lost two additional semifinals to Wilander in 88 and Courier. Basically the guy was right there. Wawrinka is probably going to be criticized so high but let's get something straight outside his 2 finals at the French, he lost to Federer twice and Nadal another time. His losses to Murray and Tsonga are also far from what you'd call bad. Under-performing/not caring about the Masters can be excused. Rosewall being #3 might also raise some eyebrows but I urge you to look at his decimation in the pro majors, he was dynamite. And oh yes, maybe I'll get flack for the Roger pick. Frankly I don't care, the guy lose to the #1 five times wherein it's highly unlikely he loses to anyone else, so turn that 1 Slam into 6 and you see my point. Good day.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Well you are obviously free to say whatever you want and since you were respectful, I will respectfully point out that every thing you said could also apply to Djokovic. Yet you have him, who is slightly more accomplished on clay and clearly handled Rafa better (due to matchup or not) 3 places below. It is weird.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
To be fair #4-8 is pretty tight. It's not really a case of significant margins between those guys.
4- Roger Federer
5- Mats Wilander
6- Ivan Lendl
7- Novak Djokovic
8- Guillermo Vilas
Wilander gets a break from me because of the abrupt end. His concentrated results and of course from a very young age really gets me over Novak but given his lack of longevity legacy wise it's going more towards Novak. But where Roger lost to Nadal 5 times IN HIS PRIME, Novak picked up Nadal on the downswing and was then troubled by Murray and beaten by Wawrinka. Fed would demolish Davydenko even on a bad day by example.
So I'm assuming Wawrinka, Ferrer and Murray are non-existent in your world, first one. Secondly the problem with the 2011-2018 clay period is the absence of Soderling and del Potro, but they were present in 2009 at least and then in the 04-09 days you also had Davydenko, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, Robredo and Canas. Then you have the wholly underrated case of Tsonga. Losses to Wawrinka x2, Djokovic x2, Ferrer and del Potro with two retirements from 09-16.
So for all intents and purposes from 04-16 you generally had Big 5 then 4-6 guys after them. Not at all "super weak" as in the 90s you typically had 6-10 contenders. Don't know how much deeper you think it goes then. Or in the 80s for that matter.
Federer, Djokvoic, and Vilas all ahead of Kuerten, LOL ok. Kuerten way past his prime destroyed Federer at RG.
Also if Muster's small clay titles are a joke the same is true as much or even more for Vilas who vultured the tiniest clay events on tour. Vilas barely getting games off Borg on clay, no matter how great Borg is, speaks to his weakness. Muster was regarded by everyone as by far the best clay courter in the world in both 95 and 96, despite the gigantic upset at RG 96. Vilas never would have been as dominant or unbeatable as Muster was those 2 years, even without Borg.
Also if Muster's small clay titles are a joke the same is true as much or even more for Vilas who vultured the tiniest clay events on tour. Vilas barely getting games off Borg on clay, no matter how great Borg is, speaks to his weakness. Muster was regarded by everyone as by far the best clay courter in the world in both 95 and 96, despite the gigantic upset at RG 96. Vilas never would have been as dominant or unbeatable as Muster was those 2 years, even without Borg.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Djokovic is a better clay courter than Federer...and you got to be deluded fanboy to have him ranked higher than both Wilander and Lendl! Lmao its like...what kind of meth are you even taking?! LOL
Drobny won the most Clay court titles of anyone in history 93-97 titles (we aren't sure of the surface for 4 of those titles). For that alone he has to be rated highly. Being a New Zealander, I would rate Wilding highly (he almost never lost on clay).
Last edited:
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Especially considering there were no masters series back then, but rather grand prix series tournaments, which prestige was very questionable, its almost felt no different from playing say Philadelphia grand prix championships back in the day and some regular tier event! These days masters are the next biggest prestigious tournaments after grand slams and year end championships! So the only BIG tournaments back then were grand slams and thats it...in the later 70's year end championships gained more popularity due to ATG like Borg or Connors contesting and it became a factor too after a while, but all in all these were nothing compared to the prestige these tournaments have today!
There were also many tournaments with only 3 rounds back then. Today there is never any with fewer than 5. The tournament total count is usually only brought up to hate on someone specific (eg- Serena or Federer) and when it isnt, it is usually by someone ill informed on tennis history and the context of the game.
Pro Kenneth
Rookie
Side question, why is Bruguera usually lesser known / underrated? Or is that just a North American problem?
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Why a one surface two-slam wonder should be well known and remembered? LOL
Bruguera was only god on clay. He wasnt even a Ferrero or Kuerten level contender off of clay. Heck Muster won Miami and beat Sampras to win a carpet Masters, and has a huge collection of U.S Open quarters and a very strong run to the Australian Open semis, so he is even way better than Bruguera on non clay courts. And Bruguera isnt exactly a bigtime legend even on clay. He is also not exactly an engaging nor controversial personality. He has no unique story and was not part of any memorable rivalry, even a 1 sided one like Vilas vs Borg which is remembered just for its record shot number in some points in some big matches. Lastly his record at the biggest North American event, the U.S Open, blows bigtime. It makes sense he isnt remembered by anyone but tennis nerds.
Drob
Hall of Fame
To the contrary, there were lots of prestige and high prestige titles in the days before Super Nines and M1000, including on Clay: Monte Carlo, Rome, Hamburg, Bournemouth, Chicago, Cannes, Nice, Prague, Poree Cup, Swiss International, Swedish Ch., and numerous others, including on the Pro circuit. You wouldn't dismiss all the high prestige titles won by Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, et al. because they were not officially recognised as a Super Nine or M1000? If not, then why the huge grain of salt regarding pre-Open prestige titles? These were five-rounds or more, generally, BTW. There many periods when the amateur was strong, even extremely strong, even if the mid 1960s was probably not one of those times.
Heck, I have counted 46 high prestige titles won by Bill Tilden (mostly amateur), not counting his Majors, meaning also not counting his Pro Majors. When I go through each of these tournaments in terms of their draws, I will throw some out, but nowhere close to half I don't imagine. So, perhaps Tilden had as many or more M1000 equivalents as Nadal and Djokovic have M1000s. We shall see.
To say the accomplishments of amateurs (or pros) should be taken with a "huge grain of salt," and to say that reference to total titles is only made to try to "hate on someone" - this is madness.
Heck, I have counted 46 high prestige titles won by Bill Tilden (mostly amateur), not counting his Majors, meaning also not counting his Pro Majors. When I go through each of these tournaments in terms of their draws, I will throw some out, but nowhere close to half I don't imagine. So, perhaps Tilden had as many or more M1000 equivalents as Nadal and Djokovic have M1000s. We shall see.
To say the accomplishments of amateurs (or pros) should be taken with a "huge grain of salt," and to say that reference to total titles is only made to try to "hate on someone" - this is madness.
Last edited:
Angrybirdstar
Semi-Pro
what are the stories here?
he won RG and MC so is this a joke or serious?
Similar threads
