First of all, I am simply dismissing the notion that clay is the toughest surface of all. If it was, then all these clay courters, who have no other life than to pathetically live and die on clay, would have won something else by now. If you find clay beautiful then thatís sweet. You are in love with clay, I get it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. Just donít make a sweeping statement that itís the toughest cause it isnít. As I see it, hard surface is just as tough if not more. You should know because your man never won it and unlikely to win it. Come to think of it, both Laver and Borg probably would have struggled just as much. How can you say, no, they wouldn't have when I can say just the same? In fact, I just did.
You just don't quit; do yo? After being out class many times in the same thread about the same topic you keep coming for more.
YOU dismiss the notion that clay is the toughest surface of all.....who are you? You don't even understand claycourt tennis what makes you the authority all of sudden. I will take a wild guess and assume you don't play tennis yourself.........there is no bailout on clay; there is no serve that can hide your weakness and holes in your game.....on clay you think, you work hard and the strongest at the end will be the last standing....simple; if is the toughest Slam to win? Some people might think that way since many great players failed miserible at RG with Sampras leading the pack.
About Nadal and hardcourts.......well, he has been quite successfull so far with many big titles and victories over tough opponenents......now, IS he more successful on clay and grass? Yes and because of his overwhelming success on natural surfaces the man is being judge by the likes of you with a pretty big stick. Don't you think you should wait at least until Nadal get out of his prime? At 22, there will be many tries for him......and because I'm not Nostradamus I will just say wait and see......get your popcorn ready because the wait might not take too long.....certainly shorter than waiting for Pete and his one dimensional game winning at RG.
Laver won the biggest hardcourt titles during his time........ever heard of Los Angeles? Borg also won big titles on HC and came very close against JMac at the UO finals......
Second of all, thereís a reason why both Sampras and Federer failed to win even one title on clay. For now, as I canít prove otherwise so I will keep to myself, I will say that Federer is better than Sampras given their records on clay and nothing else. And thatís fine even though one cannot possibly deny that, the 90s were flooded with some great clay courters and it was impossible for anyone, especially when someone didnít have as much experience on clay as opposed to those who practically grew up on clay, to win at least one slam. Other than Nadal, Federer didnít have to fight the likes of Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten, MoyaÖin fact, the list is countless and it goes on and he would have struggled just as much as Pete to win one RG title. Still, Peteís performance on clay is average compared to his other achievements on other surfaces, but it is still much better than many other clay courters who have done practically nothing on any other surfaces. And sure, Federer can edge on clay against Sampras if thatís what you like to think, but Pete is still better on all other surfaces even in the mental department and who wouldnít take that? As far as I know, Federer has yet to break any of Peteís record and I mean the important ones and has yet to win one RG.
If you only use records to make assumptions about players then why keep this argument in the first place? IF You were to pay a little attention to Roger's game on clay and then watch Sampras......it would be CLEAR to realize that Roger is just light years ahead of Pete and we can start with movement if you are looking for specific reasons, then follow with Roger's semi-western topspin forehand vs Sampras flat eastern forehand and finally the strategy employ by both players is quite the opposite.....probably Pete never had a high IQ to beging with; who knows?
The 90s weren't never flooded with claycourt greats........the 90s were flooded with players who could play on clay but SUCK in every other surface; call it what you want but great's they weren't unless you are talking about Guga which in that case...Pete never had the chance to get killed by him anyways. Pete never fought a clay great for a RG titles and when he finally made SF he got killed by a player even more pathetic on that surface than himself........losing to Delgado, Schuller and company doesn't help your argument and when he lost to Courier past 1993...the guy was a shadow of himself anyways; nothing in comparison to Nadal, Muster was a non factor at RG with the exception of 1995.
Roger beat players that are more capable than your Moyas and Kafelnikov of the 90s........from Robredo to Davydenko and Ferrer; you just will never know because both Roger and Nadal are that much better...rememeber, sucking ass in every surface but clay doesn't make you a claycourt great.
Pete better than Roger? Yes on grass and only grass.......5 consecutive UO TOP Pete, 3 AO TOP Pete......3 consecutive RG finals TOP Pete, even 6 consecutive Wimbledon finals Top Pete in the consistency department; blame Krajicek and Roger himself for that cookie.
You say Federer is greater than Bruguera, Muster and Courier on clay? And how would you know that? Do you have first hand evidence to support your theory? Did they ever play in their prime against each other? They didnít so shut up even before you open your mouth. Didnít some of you just yesterday were saying how wrong it was for Spain to choose Verdasco and that it was nothing but a stupid mistake to choose him to play the deciding match? Wasnít it Shankar who actually thought it was a smart decision in fact? Do you admit it when you are wrong because I didnít see that happening. Or do you just see arrogance in others while fail to see your own? The point is, some of you are dead wrong sometimes and you need to know it---better yet, admit it. So whatever theory you are giving out, doesnít really always cut it.
Yes Roger is better than Courier, Sergi and Muster and Kafelnikov and Moya and Agassi and Gomez.......Roger's game doesn't dissapear on clay if you haven't noticed. Roger is a formidable claycourter with more options, more intelligence and a more agressive style....he hit winners from all over the court, plays defense only bested by Rafa and shoudl I mention that forehand again. Just because Roger has no RG due to Nadal, doesn't automatically makes every player who won RG before him a better claycourter....as far as I'm concern, since 2005 only one player with a pretty unique weapon has figure out Roger on clay......Courier and Sergi in their best days as RG champs LOST many matches to 40+ ranked players.......and Kuerten?are Clavet #35, Dosedel #51, Santoro #69 , Fromberg #89, Gumy #75, Mantilla #16, Costa #54 , Pioline #16 , Gustafsson #31, Corretja #9, Rio #3, Safin #116, Puerta#95, Vicente #62, Hernandez #192, Lapentti #99 Rios #13, Santopadre #108, Moya #6, Medvedev #100, Spadea #29, Norman #49, Chela #129, Kucera, Norman #4 and Mirnyi #54 claycourt greats? ALL THESE PLAYERS BEAT GUGA HIMSELF during 1997-2001 and that's where your baseless argument about Roger losing in the 90s like Pete on clay get's DEBUNKED.............all those 90s greats were losing to nobodies while Roger is losing to only one FREAK and one FREAK only
Right now, I am more focused on Nadal than Federer. I will see what he can do next year. Expect me to rip him apart every time he fails (Shankar, buddy, you will just have to put up with me). Injury or any other excuses will not fly with me, as I never gave Federer excuses for having the so called mono. Itís all part of the game and just as weak as when I say Pete never took clay all that seriously. So if you are going to go by facts and facts only, then donít play the injury or the overplayed cardÖ.just so we are clear and on the same page.
You can focused on energy independence for all I care...............like ripping Nadal apart will hurt him someway or any of his fans who have been torture since 2004, go on but don't look for excuses if your wishes fail to materialize YET again...........of all the fans in the world, the Sampras lunatics top the balance with insecurity and a feeling of self proclaimed defender of a legacy who doesn't need any defending.