WHO ARE THE 20 BEST CLAY COURT PLAYERS EVER?

[Drob]

what are the stories here?

he won RG and MC so is this a joke or serious?

Trabert - overrated player overall, and not my personal cup of tea as a person for various "minor" reasons, which add up to I don't care for him, although he got along fine with lots of his contemporaries. Mainly, though, a bit overrated. But on clay, give him his due. Two amateur and two pro RGs make him at least top-20 all-time on clay, and possibly a little higher on this surface.

Vilas Vainglory - Gosh, all heck and shoot. There is this victimized, bratty, obsessive reach for retrospective recognition, most unseemly in a man, most unseemly in any sportsman and sportswoman. I-am-going-to-hold-my-breath-until-you-officially-change-all-the-never-existant-records-to-prove-I-was-number-one-for-one-week-on-seven-separate-weeks, or whatever the fu__ he wants. And who, who, who ever in sports built a museum to himself?

Vilas good-for-little: I was too harsh. He is an okay guy. But dude, the dude let himself be used for propaganda by the hideous, right-wing Military Junta of the 1970s in Argentina. I do not believe he liked the Junta or was of their persuasion, but he went along, willingly w the ruse, IMO.

Santana failure at Rome. IMHO. By "practically disqualifies" I think I meant practically disqualifies him from being one of the top-20. There is a lot of competition for "best lists" on clay and IMO the Internazionli d'Italia is super-duper important, above MC, Hamburg, Madrid, or wherever. Trabert, speaking of the devil, never competed there, or maybe once, so I don't mention he never won. Rosewall probably participated like two or three times, so I don't discount. Cochet but once. And so on. But Manuel Santana tried five times in futility. The fact he only ventured five times, as a "continental player," unlike Trabert and Rosewall, for example, is also weird. The Italian was and is the second most important clay tournament in the world. It was even more vital in Santana's day - a 128-player tournament that really rivaled the Australian for the fourth Major. So be it. In five attempts in his prime, Santana had the following results at Foro Italico.

R64 - twice (2nd R)
R32 (3rd R)
SF
F

I think it is weird. But, I also think Manuel has one of the most laudable Davis Cup records.

 

[DSH]

Gustavo Kuerten, without the serious hip injury, would have won 5 RG titles and would be the undisputed number 3 in the history of Roland Garros.
A tristeza não tem fim.

 

[Sudacafan]

Nadal, and then come 19 more.

 

[DSH]

Nadal, and then come 19 more.

Así es.

 

[Fintft]

Nastase should be higher, Juker lower.

Lol Muster, Kuerten, Roswell, Wilander ahead of Nastase on clay!
Not even sustained by numbers, not to mention level.

 

[RS]

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Gustavo Kuerten, without the serious hip injury, would have won 5 RG titles and would be the undisputed number 3 in the history of Roland Garros.
A tristeza não tem fim.

I rooted hard for him to at least win the 2004 one and a fourth title.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Kuerten and Mats definitely ahead of Muster.

 

[DSH]

I rooted hard for him to at least win the 2004 one and a fourth title.

That loss against Nalbandian at Roland Garros still hurts.

 

[SonnyT]

If somebody thinks that Vilas was the 3rd best clay courter, I give up.

Vilas gained lots of wins on clay by the equivalent of playing 250/500's. It's picking the best of grass courters by choosing the winners of Queens and Halle.

 

[Frenchy-Player]

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

With this track record perhaps Agassi would still have lost even his wig problem.

 

[RS]

Djokovic has won 2 more since this and Nadal 3 more

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

If somebody thinks that Vilas was the 3rd best clay courter, I give up.

Vilas gained lots of wins on clay by the equivalent of playing 250/500's. It's picking the best of grass courters by choosing the winners of Queens and Halle.

Vilas does not even have a legit FO. Kuerten/Lendl/Mats/Djoko are all ahead.

 

[bobcolbert]

If somebody thinks that Vilas was the 3rd best clay courter, I give up.

Vilas gained lots of wins on clay by the equivalent of playing 250/500's. It's picking the best of grass courters by choosing the winners of Queens and Halle.

He was. Vilas won all the big tournaments on clay, and beat all the best players on clay, and has the record of matches won on play.

 

[SonnyT]

The best test of clay is at RG. And Vilas has only the 13th best winning % at RG. Ranking ahead of him are non-RG winners Murray and Zverev, ranked 10th and 11th.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Trabert - overrated player overall, and not my personal cup of tea as a person for various "minor" reasons, which add up to I don't care for him, although he got along fine with lots of his contemporaries. Mainly, though, a bit overrated. But on clay, give him his due. Two amateur and two pro RGs make him at least top-20 all-time on clay, and possibly a little higher on this surface.

Vilas Vainglory - Gosh, all heck and shoot. There is this victimized, bratty, obsessive reach for retrospective recognition, most unseemly in a man, most unseemly in any sportsman and sportswoman. I-am-going-to-hold-my-breath-until-you-officially-change-all-the-never-existant-records-to-prove-I-was-number-one-for-one-week-on-seven-separate-weeks, or whatever the fu__ he wants. And who, who, who ever in sports built a museum to himself?

Vilas good-for-little: I was too harsh. He is an okay guy. But dude, the dude let himself be used for propaganda by the hideous, right-wing Military Junta of the 1970s in Argentina. I do not believe he liked the Junta or was of their persuasion, but he went along, willingly w the ruse, IMO.

Santana failure at Rome. IMHO. By "practically disqualifies" I think I meant practically disqualifies him from being one of the top-20. There is a lot of competition for "best lists" on clay and IMO the Internazionli d'Italia is super-duper important, above MC, Hamburg, Madrid, or wherever. Trabert, speaking of the devil, never competed there, or maybe once, so I don't mention he never won. Rosewall probably participated like two or three times, so I don't discount. Cochet but once. And so on. But Manuel Santana tried five times in futility. The fact he only ventured five times, as a "continental player," unlike Trabert and Rosewall, for example, is also weird. The Italian was and is the second most important clay tournament in the world. It was even more vital in Santana's day - a 128-player tournament that really rivaled the Australian for the fourth Major. So be it. In five attempts in his prime, Santana had the following results at Foro Italico.

R64 - twice (2nd R)
R32 (3rd R)
SF
F

I think it is weird. But, I also think Manuel has one of the most laudable Davis Cup records.

Yes, I think that Rome is an important clay tournament.
Several top twenty clay players are here.
Important winners include, from the classic era of tennis,

1930 Tilden
1950, 1951, 1953 Drobny
1952 Sedgman
1954 Patty
1956 Hoad
1957, 1961 Pietrangeli
1962, 1971 Laver (won 1962 final in five sets over Emerson)
1963, 1965, 1967 Mulligan
1966 Roche
1968 Okker
1969 Newcombe (won the final in five sets over Roche)
1970, 1973 Nastase
1974, 1978 Borg
1976 Panatta
1977, 1979 Gerulaitas
1980 Vilas

Notably absent are Trabert and Emerson, and Santana, all of whom were great on clay.

All of the names above probably belong among the top twenty clay players, except perhaps Gerulaitas, Sedgman, Okker, Mulligan (if he had won the 1962 French Open, in which he held championship points, he would belong.)
Patty probably belongs there.
Newcombe had some big clay wins, including the 1969 Italian over Roche, the 1971 Toronto over Rosewall and Okker on red clay, and others. Newcombe beat Rosewall at Roland Garros in 1968, their only meeting there, and beat Kodes in a marathon five sets at Roland Garros in 1969.
Hoad won both the French and Italian, and won a pro clay tour of Italy (the Facis Trophy) over a great list of clay giants (Rosewall, Gimeno, Trabert, Segura). He won against Rpsewa at Roland Garros in 1959.

 

[Dan Lobb]

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.

Actually, Laver led Rosewall in lifetime hth on clay by a substantial margin.

 

[abmk]

Actually, Laver led Rosewall in lifetime hth on clay by a substantial margin.

ah, yes, the substantial 13-11 margin!

 

[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!!

Wilding hardly ever lost a clay court match and 77 clay tournament wins . Drobny won around 93 titles on clay

 

[Dan Lobb]

ah, yes, the substantial 13-11 margin!

According to Tennisbase 2017

On clay
Laver/Rosewall 32 matches 21-11
This edge on clay accounted for the overall hth edge for Laver over Rosewall.

Also on clay
Laver/Gimeno 46 matches 23-23

On grass
From the same source
Rosewall/Laver 32 matches 16-16

 

[thrust]

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!!

Not that it really matters, but I am pretty sure Borotra only won 1 RG. Also, Rosewall's other 4 French Pro titles were on fast indoor surface, in which he beat Laver in all 4- 63,64,65 and 66. Had the tournament stayed at RG, Ken probably would have won 2-or 4 more at RG.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Not that it really matters, but I am pretty sure Borotra only won 1 RG. Also, Rosewall's other 4 French Pro titles were on fast indoor surface, in which he beat Laver in all 4- 63,64,65 and 66. Had the tournament stayed at RG, Ken probably would have won 2-or 4 more at RG.

Unfortunately, we cannot give credit for "probable" wins which never happened.
If we could, I have a list for you.
Laver "probably" would have won some more RG titles if the French Pro had been played there after 1962.

 

[Drob]

As to the TB record, I just looked up the Laver-Rosewall Rivalry. On clay, I counted up an overall tally, according to TB reports, of:

Laver advantage of 15-10.

Other source might have a few more matches, but this probably gives a truthful, if possibly not precisely perfect, idea of the H2H - probably the best we have. The TB record underscores Laver is a top-10 clay-courter. Indirectly, it also shows that Rosewall is easily top-10 Indoor Fast Courts. As Timnz said:

Rosewall's other 4 French Pro titles were on fast indoor surface, in which he beat Laver in all 4- 63,64,65 and 66.

 

[SonnyT]

I can't remember the names of 20. Let's reduce it to the creme of de creme, to five.

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

 

[timnz]

Unfortunately, we cannot give credit for "probable" wins which never happened.
If we could, I have a list for you.
Laver "probably" would have won some more RG titles if the French Pro had been played there after 1962.

He did in 1968 (usually not counted because after the open era commenced in April 1968, and there was a French open that year, but it was actually still the French pro, at Roland garros)

 

[CHIP72]

If we include female players (and have the rankings focus on players' accomplishments vs their own gender, plus mixed doubles), Chris Evert clearly ranks #2 all-time.

 

[SonnyT]

We should separate the men and women, shouldn't we? Or else, we cannot separate Borg from Evert.

 

[fedfan24]

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Villas
7. Laver
8. Djokovic
9. Federer
9. muster

 

[DSH]

I can't remember the names of 20. Let's reduce it to the creme of de creme, to five.

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

Where is Henri Cochet on your list?

 

[fafa]

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

 

[Dan Lobb]

As to the TB record, I just looked up the Laver-Rosewall Rivalry. On clay, I counted up an overall tally, according to TB reports, of:

Laver advantage of 15-10.

Other source might have a few more matches, but this probably gives a truthful, if possibly not precisely perfect, idea of the H2H - probably the best we have. The TB record underscores Laver is a top-10 clay-courter. Indirectly, it also shows that Rosewall is easily top-10 Indoor Fast Courts. As Timnz said:

The 2017 version of TennisBase gives Laver/Rosewall lifetime on clay at 21-11 for Laver. Not sure what happened in their data base to change that number.
Also Laver/Gimeno lifetime on clay at 23-23, so Laver had a tougher time with Gimeno on clay than he did against Rosewall on clay. Another surprise.

Also Laver/Rosewall lifetime on grass 16-16, which is also a surprise. You would expect Laver to have the edge there.

 

[Shaolin]

1.Nadal
2.Nagal
3.Borg

 

[SonnyT]

Where is Henri Cochet on your list?

Who's Henri? A buddy of yours in Paris?

 

[Olli Jokinen]

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

Kicked his ass if pre 89 Wilander.

 

[Drob]

I can't remember the names of 20. Let's reduce it to the creme of de creme, to five.

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

Kindly permit me to presume to remind you as to names of some "creme of de creme" as you put it, as to clay (maybe you were joking and those worthies are your sincere top-five):

Cochet
Tilden
Rosewall
Lacoste
Laver


Drobny
Wilander
Courier
von Cramm

Vilas?




Cela fait quatroze ou quinze de la Creme. Pour commencer.

 

[Drob]

He did in 1968 (usually not counted because after the open era commenced in April 1968, and there was a French open that year, but it was actually still the French pro, at Roland garros)

ABSOLUTELY

 

[DSH]

Who's Henri? A buddy of yours in Paris?

One of the four musketeers of Roland Garros.

 

[timnz]

Its amazing that Wilding gets omitted off lists like this when he was so dominant on Clay. You have to really look hard for his losses on the surface (they did happen but they were rare).

 

[DSH]

Its amazing that Wilding gets omitted off lists like this when he was so dominant on Clay. You have to really look hard for his losses on the surface (they did happen but they were rare).

Tell me your list of the 20 best clay players in history.

 

[timnz]

Tell me your list of the 20 best clay players in history.

Not sure about top 20 - but some a clear

1/ Nadal
2/ Borg
3/ Lendl
4/ Kuerten
5/ Djokovic
6 through 20 would include Vilas, Nusslein (probably the best clay courter of the 1930's), Wilding (best clay courter pre-WW1), Wilander, Muster, Tilden won a remarkable number of clay court titles but probably Nusslein was better, Drobny due to num of clay titles, not sure where to place Rosewall and Laver.

 

[The Devil probably]

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

 

[Neptune]

Not sure about top 20 - but some a clear

1/ Nadal
2/ Borg
3/ Lendl
4/ Kuerten
5/ Djokovic
6 through 20 would include Vilas, Nusslein (probably the best clay courter of the 1930's), Wilding (best clay courter pre-WW1), Wilander, Muster, Tilden won a remarkable number of clay court titles but probably Nusslein was better, Drobny due to num of clay titles, not sure where to place Rosewall and Laver.

How could you forget your own ranking criteria?

REVISED: Updated Open era achievment ranking system using current ATP weighting

This ranking systems approach is to compare Open era players tournament achievements at a 500 series title equivalent and higher (point wise). This is NOT a 'greatness' index of Open era players. 'Greatness' is a subjective term (doesn't mean it isn't valuable), whereas the intention of this...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[BeatlesFan]

Kuerten and Mats definitely ahead of Muster.

Well, obviously, since they both won 3 RG's and Thomas won only one RG. But Muster is hideously underrated here on clay, even in Former Pro forum. He won 40+ clay tournaments! Muster was a total God.

 

[NaDjoFed]

Nadal + 19

 

[Incognito]

Top 5 Peak level on clay:

1. Nadal
2-3. Fed/Borg
4. Kuerten
5. Lendl

When Alcaraz matures, he’ll be in company of Fed/Borg. We’ll see.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Well, obviously, since they both won 3 RG's and Thomas won only one RG. But Muster is hideously underrated here on clay, even in Former Pro forum. He won 40+ clay tournaments! Muster was a total God.

I don't really see how he is underrated here if there are several posters talking about his allegedly "Nadal-like" dominance. Muster was a little like Vilas winning many smaller tournaments but failing mostly when it really counted I.e. at the FO. His record there is arguably the worst of all FO winners of the 90s.

 

[timnz]

How could you forget your own ranking criteria?

REVISED: Updated Open era achievment ranking system using current ATP weighting

This ranking systems approach is to compare Open era players tournament achievements at a 500 series title equivalent and higher (point wise). This is NOT a 'greatness' index of Open era players. 'Greatness' is a subjective term (doesn't mean it isn't valuable), whereas the intention of this...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

My system just adds up points not state which player is the best. It’s a tally system to show who in the open era has won the most points in 500 point and greater halls. It’s not relevant very much to this question. Though you could add up someone’s clay points I guess

 

[Jonas78]

Djokovic and Federer are always underrated because of the impossible Nadal, he was more or less unbeatable on clay for 10 years.

 

[timnz]

Djokovic and Federer are always underrated because of the impossible Nadal, he was more or less unbeatable on clay for 10 years.

If no Nadal how many Roland Garros titles for Federer? I think 2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2011 . Six that is as many as Borg. But we need to let that go. Reality is what is important

 

[nolefam_2024]

If no Nadal how many Roland Garros titles for Federer? I think 2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2011 . Six that is as many as Borg. But we need to let that go. Reality is what is important

No
No no

If we remove Borg level player and then say Borg and fed are equal then it's very wrong. There is no if not Nadal. Fed lost 6 times and Nole 8 times. If you can't beat them then you are not worthy.