Who is the Greatest player on clay never to win the French Open?

PCXL-Fan

Hall of Fame
Who is the Greatest player of clay never to win the French Open?

I'd have to say Federer.

- 3 years in a row the FO final, 4 years in a row prevented from winning the slam because of Nadal.
- 4 Clay Master Series Shields (titles), Runner-Up in 6 Master Series Clay finals, 5 of which were via losses in the final to Nadal.
 
Last edited:

TMCW140

Hall of Fame
Might have to go with federer as well- he's just come up against the greatest clay courter of all time. unlucky really!
 

matchmaker

Hall of Fame
Alex Corretja

Marcelo Rios never even made it further than the quarters, but he did win all the clay Masters.
 
Over the last 20 years (too young to have followed much before that), my entirely subjective top 5 would be:

1. Federer
2. Coria
3. Corretja
4. Rios
5. Medvedev

Maybe an honorable mention for Berasategui
 

egn

Hall of Fame
Joh Mcenroe, Jimmy Connors, Pete Sampras. Take your pick.

McEnroe ehh
Connors ehh
Sampras hell no

McEnroe only had two good years at France one F and one SF and Connors I want to say yes, but although you can cite his huge red clay gap he still never was amazing on clay when he came back. THough it might have been not getting a chance to play it for so many years. Sampras..please don't make me laugh.

Federer is obviously atop this list, I mean 3 French Open Finals, 4 Clay Masters, 7 Runner Ups its all because of one guy too. Coria, Corretja, Berasategui, Medvedev and Leconte are all at the same level. Federer takes the cake out of this.
 
Seriously, if it weren't for Nadal Federer would have:

At least 2 FOs(06-07) for sure, possibly 3(I think he would have beaten Puerta in five in 05). He would also have won:

Monte Carlo 06
Rome 06
Monte Carlo 07
Monte Carlo 08
Hamburg 08.

For 9 Masters shields and 2-3 FOs.
 

eagle

Hall of Fame
As many slams as he's won, Sampras never came close.

So, I vote for Federer who could have won 4 FOs already had it not been for the beast from the Mallorca.

r,
eagle
 

wihamilton

Hall of Fame
Easily Federer. In the last four years he's reached the semis / finals / finals / finals. That's ridiculous. And each time he lost to the GOAT on clay.
 

Milan

Rookie
the OP says BEST CLAY COURTER.. not best player, therefore get rid of McEnroe, Connors, and Sampras. McEnroe made final once, and Sampras never made the final.

Clearly number 1 is Federer. 3 Finals in a row, a semifinal before that, all losses to Nadal the greatest ever Clay Courter.

Coria will be number 2 because he was phenomenal on clay and unfortunately he lost his match points to Gaudio. If he won those MP, he would still be around today and he would be top 10 for sure. He also would have a few Masters Shields on Clay.

Corretja, Rios, and Berastegeui would be the next 3, who were probably all equal. Corretja was a great player in his day of the 90's, and unfortunately did not have the nerve to win. These are all minor guys however, FED is the clear winner of this question by MILES
 

pmerk34

Legend
the OP says BEST CLAY COURTER.. not best player, therefore get rid of McEnroe, Connors, and Sampras. McEnroe made final once, and Sampras never made the final.

Clearly number 1 is Federer. 3 Finals in a row, a semifinal before that, all losses to Nadal the greatest ever Clay Courter.

Coria will be number 2 because he was phenomenal on clay and unfortunately he lost his match points to Gaudio. If he won those MP, he would still be around today and he would be top 10 for sure. He also would have a few Masters Shields on Clay.

Corretja, Rios, and Berastegeui would be the next 3, who were probably all equal. Corretja was a great player in his day of the 90's, and unfortunately did not have the nerve to win. These are all minor guys however, FED is the clear winner of this question by MILES

Edberg won three titles on dirt.
 

fastdunn

Legend
Federer. I can't not believe Federer has not won it yet. All he needs is just one slip, one slip from Nadal.

If he was in other era, say 90's, he would have won it many times...
 

R_Federer

Professional
Federer. I can't not believe Federer has not won it yet. All he needs is just one slip, one slip from Nadal.

Ya man, I keep praying for that. I really want him to get it. I dont know man there is no luck...no other opponent knocks off Nadal and Nadal's body somehow holds up each year but I really hope Roger doesnt give up he has taken Nadal deep in the match as well at FO so he should just ignore what happened last year.
 

d-quik

Hall of Fame
can you guys imagine how much we would be bowing down to the swiss if a man named rafael nadal NEVER EXISTED? i mean he is pretty much at least 50% of the reason why the swiss isn't a consensus goat. bahhhhh
 

CyBorg

Legend
Pancho Segura is the obvious answer - or should be.

Hans Nusslein, Manuel Orantes worth mentioning.
 

PCXL-Fan

Hall of Fame
I cant believe someone has to ask this question.

I didn't have to ask. I already knew it was Federer. This was just an underhanded means of making it obvious to everyone how amazingly awesome Federer is on clay and how he is better at clay then a number of FO champions.
 
Last edited:

PCXL-Fan

Hall of Fame
CORIA!!!!!!!!!!! I cry myself to sleep at night about how he missed that FO.

Are you guys nuts? Coria was born to win the French. I'm too upset to even talk about it.

I will prove you wrong. Its Federer. Although Coria disappeared in 06 & 07 because of injuries & a desire to re-invent himself to regain the success he had in 03-05, Federer defeated Coria twice when Coria was in his prime (between 2003-2005).

- Federer hold a 2-0 lead on CLAY on Coria (3-0 overall).

2005 ATP Masters Series Hamburg
Germany Clay Q Federer 6-4 7-6(3)

2004 ATP Masters Series Hamburg
Germany Clay F Federer 4-6 6-4 6-2 6-3

Notable performances in FO:
- Federer has 3 FO final appearances one semi and one quarter, one 4th round.
- Coria has 1 FO final and one semi appearance, one 4th round.

Master Series Shields (titles):
Federer: 4 titles, 6 times runner-up (lost 5 times to nadal, once to Felix Mantilla(in 2003))
Coria: 2 titles, 4 times runner-up (lost to Nadal twice, Federer once, Ferrero once)

- Fitness and longevity are an aspect of greatest, and if Coria could not prevent himself from getting injured and could not sustain his high level of performance and then needed to reinvent himself to ATTEMPT to be successful again (on Clay), those are negative points against him. And if he were to reinvent himself it would be in attempt to be successful again at clay, because lets face it that was the only surface Coria had great success at.

Now Federer is also utterly undefeated on clay (as well as overall) against the guy who beat Coria in Coria's one FO final appearance, Gaston Gaudio.

Federer leads 2-0 against Gaudio on Clay. (5-0 overall)

2003 Gstaad
Switzerland Clay S Federer 6-1 7-6(6)
2004 ATP Masters Series
Hamburg Germany Clay R64 Federer 6-1 5-7 6-4


Coria has lost in 4 CLAY Master Series finals, to 3 individuals: Juan Carlos Ferrero, Federer, Nadal.

And guess what Federer is 3-0 against Ferrero on Clay (9-3 overall).

2007 ATP Masters Series
Hamburg Germany Clay R16 Federer 6-2 6-3
2007 ATP Masters Series
Monte Carlo Monaco Clay S Federer 6-3 6-4
2003 ATP Masters Series
Rome Italy Clay S Federer 6-4 4-2 RET
 
Last edited:

zagor

Bionic Poster
Fed,Corretja,Coria,I also think Medvedev was very talented on clay and should have won FO as well(was close though).
 

baseliner

Professional
to Rhino and thejoe-sorry for the delay in response. Agree to strike Sampras. Please substitute Cliff Richey. As for Connors-he won a Grand Slam tourney on clay (USO). Mcenroe got to the finals of the French and was up 2 sets to none when the whammy kicked in.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Roger started playing on the ATP tour in 1998. He played 6 RG before Nadal played his first RG in 2005. If Roger is such a great clay courter, how come he didn't win RG before Nadal started playing it? (After all in 2005 Roger was already #1 with several slams to his name). How come he has never won Rome even last year when Nadal lost in first round and wasn't at all in Fed's way? This being said 1 semi and 3 finals must be frustrating. It reminds me of Lendl who played 5 semis and 2 finals at Wimbledon without ever getting the title and Borg who played 1 semi and 4 USO finals but never nailed the title anyway.
That goes to show that even the greatest know failure one way or the other!
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Roger started playing on the ATP tour in 1998. He played 6 RG before Nadal played his first RG in 2005. If Roger is such a great clay courter, how come he didn't win RG before Nadal started playing it? (After all in 2005 Roger was already #1 with several slams to his name). How come he has never won Rome even last year when Nadal lost in first round and wasn't at all in Fed's way? This being said 1 semi and 3 finals must be frustrating. It reminds me of Lendl who played 5 semis and 2 finals at Wimbledon without ever getting the title and Borg who played 1 semi and 4 USO finals but never nailed the title anyway.
That goes to show that even the greatest know failure one way or the other!




If Roger wasn't such a great clay courter, why does it take an all time clay great to deny him a French Open title?
 

cueboyzn

Professional
If Federer had played Sampras on Clay he would have eaten him for breakfast bagels. So when Federer gets to 14 Slams, he has to be considered the Greatest.
 

PCXL-Fan

Hall of Fame
Roger started playing on the ATP tour in 1998. He played 6 RG before Nadal played his first RG in 2005. If Roger is such a great clay courter, how come he didn't win RG before Nadal started playing it? (After all in 2005 Roger was already #1 with several slams to his name). How come he has never won Rome even last year when Nadal lost in first round and wasn't at all in Fed's way? This being said 1 semi and 3 finals must be frustrating. It reminds me of Lendl who played 5 semis and 2 finals at Wimbledon without ever getting the title and Borg who played 1 semi and 4 USO finals but never nailed the title anyway.
That goes to show that even the greatest know failure one way or the other!

I KNEW what you are saying here would be something used by someone. I just wasn't expecting it from you, and was expecting Fintendo to say it, in a last ditcheffort.

Federer was not Federer until 2004 after the 03 Wimbledon and the 03 Masters Cup. So before that it was moot. Federer was a late bloomer. He had so many pieces of his game to put together it took him a while to mature to handle all his capabilities.

IN the 2004 French Open Federer lost to 3 time FO champion Gustavo Kuerten, who was able to pull off a performance at a level indicative of his former great form, and Federer was not playing at his best.

BBC News said:
Gustavo Kuerten rolled back the years to beat top seed Roger Federer in the third round of the French Open.
Kuerten, champion at Roland Garros in 1997, 2000 and 2001, produced the sort of form that has largely eluded him since he underwent hip surgery in 2002.

World number one Federer was nowhere near his best but Kuerten never allowed him to find a rhythm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/3758983.stm



Here watch the match yourself Veroniquem:
Kuerten - Federer 2004 French Open part 1

Kuerten - Federer 2004 French Open part 2

Kuerten - Federer 2004 French Open part 3

There are more parts but im to lazy to link to all 9. Go here to watch them all: http://ca.youtube.com/user/steffanofanderoger
 
Last edited:
Top