Obviously, anyone who has done that well at the French Open is. Losing to Nadal at the last game doesn't take anything away from him.
Greatest mens tennis player of all time
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Well there's your choke point then. No one considers him a clay courter. He made all those finals despite, not because his lack of comfort on clay.
Yeah, because he lost in the final to the best clay courter ever. Not really a great standpoint.
Federer mastered every single surface he played on.
Did he really master clay ? Or was it simply a byproduct of how good/dominant he was during that stretch ?
Last edited:
Including surfaces is of course important, but when you take certain surfaces out of the equation full stop and hold them of less weight, makes no sense to me.
Who mastered clay according to you, apart from Rafa obviously?
Rafa dominated clay, he's the best clay court player ever, followed closely by Borg (imo).
The era preceding Rafa and going back to the 70s had a series of 2-3 year type periods of clay court domination - Ferrera, Kuerten, Bruguera, Courier, Lendl, Wilander etc. Clay has in the modern era exclusively been the domain of European players, in fact Americans were shut out at Roland Garros for decades until Chang won it in 89.
You mentioned someone like Moya earlier. I would back peak Federer against him on clay, simple as that.
Going back to the original argument and putting aside tags like specialist and masters, Federer at his dominating peak even on his least preferred surface is harder to beat than someone who plays his best on clay but isn't as good a tennis player as Federer to begin with. That's what it all boils down to, whether it was a big deal to beat Federer on clay during his peak years or not, regardless of whether it was due to him being good at clay or just being a top tennis player, and it obviously was, more than most other players, present or past, specialist or not. And that makes Nadal doing that multiple times absolutely fantastic as far as his stature and achievement in the sport is concerned, as well as the head to head with Federers. It is completely wrong and inaccurate to say Nadal had it easy during his RG wins.
Federer and Djokovic are European I don't get how Rafa gets an advantage over them?
Rafa would destroy all the previous clay greats. I think peak Fed would have a decent chance too although he struggled on it initially as we saw against Gustavo.
I don't recall ever saying Nadal had it easy at RG. I was just stating the point that he, as most Spanish players are, was/is very good on clay compared to other surfaces. Its no coincidence that 14 of the past 25 French Open winners are from Spain. That's the primary surface they grow up practicing on. Its not taking anything away from Rafa - he's easily the greatest clay court player ever and he broke from tradition by being good enough to win on other surfaces as well. That's what makes him one of the greatest players ever.
I don't know what the courts are like in Serbia and Switzerland, but Spain has a long tradition of producing clay court specialists since 1990 (Bruguera, Berasategui, Moya, Corretja, Costa, Ferrero, Nadal etc). Before that, it was pretty wide open. Their women have also fared pretty well during that stretch - Arantxa Sanchez Vicario won it 3 times and made 6 finals, and the current women's' champion is also Spanish.
The fact Federer has won 3 of the Slams at least 5 times puts him clearly out on his own as the best.
I'd also have Djokovic shading Nadal and Sampras due to his volume of finals played in the last 5 years on all surfaces.
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Sampras/Nadal
I'd also have Djokovic shading Nadal and Sampras due to his volume of finals played in the last 5 years on all surfaces.
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Sampras/Nadal
That was the whole bit about Nadal beating non clay specialists was about, forgetting that the player he beat is the greatest tennis player ever.
Basically overstating the importance of being comfortable on the surface over the actual quality of the opponent. He beat Roger Federer, even if you call him a non clay specialist, he's still a bigger competition to him than the token Spaniards who seemingly grew up playing on clay would ever have been. Unless a certain top player is completely inept at that surface, which Federer on clay absolutely wasn't, the ability far surpasses the value of what surface the game is played on and in this case, it does by a fair margin while talking about the weightage of Nadal's RG wins.
That's precisely why I raised the disparity of records on surfaces. 13-2 on clay - 10-10 otherwise. There's nothing wrong with making the distinction based on surfaces and raising the point that Spanish players have historically been very strong on clay.
One thing about Federer is his incredible consistency, because even when he lost at slams it was usually in a final or semi to another incredibly good player. Nadal and Djokovic have both gone out to players that really aren't great and I just can't remember that happening to Federer.
Indeed, that is one of his biggest plus points. His consistency has been insane. Just as a comparison to someone like Sampras, while Sampras has two more GS wins than Djokovic, the picture broadens when you look further:
GS Wins : Djokovic 12 - 14 Sampras
Finals : Djokovic 21 - 18 Sampras
Semi Finals : 31 - 23 Sampras (quite a margin there)
Quarter Finals : 37 - 29 Sampras
I would probably have Pete as his absolute peak beating Nole in a match but in terms of overall career, Nole is comfortably ahead for me. (Plus he's still playing)
Which is largely, if not completely, down to just how incredible Nadal is on clay and not because Federer lacked particularly on it. He obviously didn't and most other specialists apart from the likes of Borg would have gone down to Federer in the form he was during that time.
I don't think the results would've been any different if Borg was playing Federer, as he's not far behind Rafa on the clay court GOAT list. Federer was just too good overall to where he wound up going very deep into tournaments on the clay court circuit, where he obviously ran into a wall in Nadal.
Yeah, that's what I said, it would take having an all time clay court great like Nadal or Borg to stop Federer from winning that, as it was with Nadal and doing that would be an incredible achievement given simply how dominant Federer at his peak was, which gives a lot of weight to Nadal's record on clay vs Federer in the bigger picture.
No one suggested otherwise. We just broke it up by surfaces to show that one surface - Nadal's strongest and Federer's weakest - was disproportionately skewing the head to head comparisons. When removed, they are 10-10, which removes this aura of dominance that is obviously used to counter the fact that Nadal is well behind in slams.
It does, and is the representation of Nadal's greatness on that surface which is as much a part of the sport as anything else, and adds to the overall picture.
There's no aura, Nadal dominating Federer is a reality unless you start making convenient selections and take actual events out of their careers.
Again, there's nothing wrong with breaking it down by surface. Its not taking anything away from Nadal's accomplishments. It just highlights the perceptual illusion of the head to head comparison.
I think if Nadal, Federer, Djokovic all come through at the same time and Nadal isn't hampered by injuries Federer would have the fewest slams, but that's just what ifs. Overall Federer is probably the greatest player ever when you take into account records, longevity, style etc. but if you could take every single player at their absolute peak for a tournament I suspect Novak or Nadal would win.
You're probably right as Djokovic would've probably taken a couple of Wimbledons from Roger. Nadal would likely have the most slams since he's more of a clay court specialist of the three.
For me Djoko at his peak does not beat Federer in his prime on grass. It took a monumental effort and the best match of all time for Nadal to beat him in his pomp on grass. Djokovic wouldn't stand a chance IMO.
Agreed, but it would be very close. Fed at his peak was very difficult to beat...unless of course he was dealing with clay courters.
Don't forget at one point Novak held all four slams at once. Not even Federer or Nadal managed that, at his best he was a freak.
On clay he was still very good as well...reached every final bar one from 06-11, losing only to Nadal. If it'd hadn't been for Nadal then he'd probably be on three or four FO titles.
Completely agree.
Nadal for me to answer the OP.
He essentially had to play through the peaks of both Federer and Djokovic and still racked up the slams. Federer had the advantage of gobbling up slams against the likes of Hewitt, Roddick and co until the emergence of Nadal. And it took Nadal a bit of time to get to grips with the different surfaces to be able to challenge Fed.
He essentially had to play through the peaks of both Federer and Djokovic and still racked up the slams. Federer had the advantage of gobbling up slams against the likes of Hewitt, Roddick and co until the emergence of Nadal. And it took Nadal a bit of time to get to grips with the different surfaces to be able to challenge Fed.
Only achieved that once those two slowed down, Nadal was suffering from tendinitis since 2009. Djoko of course still fought against a very difficult Nadal, but it wasn't prime Nadal and lets not even bring Fed into the equation.
If Djokovic had won more slams from 2007-2010, even a few more.. I'd say he is worthy of being seen as an equal to those two. But he is a tier below imo.
If I'm wrong, I remember reading that Federer grew up practicing a lot on clay. I keep reading Federer is not a clay court specialist but he's won loads of Masters on the surface and he's something like 4-5 Finals at RG. He's been unlucky he's come up against the greatest ever clay courter in Nadal but that should not change the fact that Federer is an extremely good player on clay and so is Novak Djokovic.
I think 90% of people will find Federer GOAT and I'm inclined to agree but I still find Nadal's accomplishments more remarkable. Spaniards really struggle away from clay but Nadal went against that norm and has done really well on the other surfaces where he was really poor. He has no right to be up there on hard courts with his serve and lack of overall gameplay as compared to the others. He's had to play Federer and Djokovic both at their peaks and yet he's somehow gotten these many slams.
I think 90% of people will find Federer GOAT and I'm inclined to agree but I still find Nadal's accomplishments more remarkable. Spaniards really struggle away from clay but Nadal went against that norm and has done really well on the other surfaces where he was really poor. He has no right to be up there on hard courts with his serve and lack of overall gameplay as compared to the others. He's had to play Federer and Djokovic both at their peaks and yet he's somehow gotten these many slams.
I really think that's doing Novak a bit of a disservice. Once he sorted out his diet and fitness issues, he's been out of this planet. Yes Nadal hasn't been the same since 2011 but Djokovic was beaten him even then, he's made Nadal sweat at RG and even when he's beaten Federer in Slams in recent years, Fed had been playing a great level of tennis until he ran into Novak. I'm a massive Nadal fan but I know it won't be long before Novak is going to be counted as good as , if not better, than Rafa.
Rafa had played something like 10 career matches on grass before the 2007 Wimbledon though so for him to have beaten Federer on grass in 08 is probably the most remarkable achievement of his career so far. Whatever one might say about the slowing of grass, Nadal has the worst suited game to succeed on grass and I think we've all kind of seen that after his 2nd Wimbledon title. I think he just willed himself to somehow reach a level that was way above him just to get that slam on grass.
The fact I rate Djokovic as third on my all time list, shows you just how highly I rate him. I consider him better than Sampras, Borg and Agassi to name but a few,
On his day, he can of course beat Federer or Nadal even in their prime. He has that capability in his game, that is how much of a champion he is. My only criticism is that those two are consistently superior players on their day than Djokovic.
I.e. if they played each other 8 times (2 times on each surface), I'd back them to win more matches overall than he will. He is just edged out by them.
To use a cricketing context, if those two are Lara and Tendulkar.. he is Ponting. He's also my second favourite player after Murray (GB).. just edges out Nadal because I like his personality, more of an underdog sort of guy with a good sense of humour.
I see lots of use of past tense regarding Nadal. He is a revenant. Don't put him in past yet. Same to slightly less degree goes for Djokovic.
Well since he just won a grand slam two days ago, you may as well add Federer to that list too.
Being Indian, this might sound blasphemous but I've always considered Ponting the better player than Tendulkar anyway
Back to tennis though, I just feel peak Djokovic has the defense and mental strength of Nadal, combined with a far better serve and range of strokes as compared to Rafa. Novak has beaten Nadal 6 times in a row and this was when Nadal was actually pretty damn good. I hope Novak doesn't cross Rafa but I find them both at the same level and both have been unlucky to never really have an easy field to play against.
Federer himself hinted at retirement after the win, this year is likely to be a farewell tour for him like it was for Kobe last year with most games and tournaments celebrating his career. Think he has one last push left in him for Wimbledon, but even this win might just give him the closure he wanted and call it a day.