People think Fed is bad on clay because Nadal match is deadly for him, but he is easily top 5 clay courters of all time, considering the best match he's ever played was on clay
Federer lost 4 finals and 2 semi finals against the best player to ever play on this surface...Without Nadal, we can argue that Fed could have won at least 3 more Roland Garros...so yeah, Fed was pretty strong on clay
Spot on! No doubt Fed would have won more RG's if Nadal wasn't there. Sadly, if if if, does not exist. What truly surprising is that Fed didn't win as much before Nadal came along, years between 2001-2004 where he could win more on clay in general. It's like he had no serious intentions of winning on clay and when Nadal came he had no choice but to improve big time, and still wasn't quite enough... Rome 2006 final "scarred him for life" on that surface, never been the same player on the dirt since then. Could've been so different if he took those match points but then we're back to: if if if does not exist :P
@@Askaa88 Federer only won his first grand slam at Wimbledon in 2003. He was not a top tier player before then. He had beaten Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001, but until Wimbledon 2003, he was not really a huge factor. He had a reputation of being all flash and no substance. During that period, Agassi was still very strong (was in fact at the time the oldest player to ever be ranked number 1), and of the younger generation, people were talking more about Hewitt, Roddick, Ferraro, Safin, and even Coria. People were calling Coria the next king of clay; that was before things imploded for him after his loss to Gaudio. Things really kicked into gear for Federer in 2004, but he ran into Kuerten (three-time champion) at the French. And by 2005, the Nadal era on clay had begun.
from 2005 to 2011 federer was actually really exellent on clay it's just that nadal was so good back then and on top of that he was such a nasty match up for federer
Kinda insane that he was so good on clay and only able to capture one French open title. The 2011 final could have turned out quite differently if Federer just converted that set point on the drop shot.
@@bryceswartz8657 Losing to Nadal on Clay is never a shame, ın fact you are facing the greatest Clay courter ever meaning more difficult than Novak that had always been the most difficult task for all Rg final
Interesting that he's 3-0 at the first clay court tourney, monte carlo (including a win in 2014), but 0-3 in Rome (including a loss in 2009). Shows that often Novak takes a bit longer to adjust to the clay, but once he does he's lethal
I hope everybody realises that this 33 year-old Fed on his least favourite surface does everything better than Alcaraz on a tennis court at the moment, except for defending (which you don't have to do too much of when you hit winners off both wings left, right and centre, even against the best defensive players of all time, Novak). Not merely scary, otherworldly! Just look at Djokovic's face after the break in the second set. In theory, still a lot of potential for fighting back since it's early in the set but as he well knows Fed is in that zone where he's unplayable. He knew as well as anyone else that the match was over even though he was like 6 years younger and (even) fitter than Fed and should have believed there was some room for a comeback. That Fed would not allow any breathing room. Same thing happened to Rafa when he played Roger in 2017. Only match that wasnt an utter beat down was the AO final (much to the delight of the tennis fans). But the other matches (IW, Miami, Shanghai), Fed is 35/36 and he's leagues above Rafa in terms of level of play. Why was his prime long over though? Because of regularity. He wasnt able to produce in his 30's that level with the same consistency as he did in his best years (2004-2009). I would have LOVED to see prime Roger against prime Alcaraz, Sinner and Rune. Not talking about the old next gen which he obliterated while way past his prime. The man was a joke. GOAT
Exactly this. Old man Fed was doing what young man Alcaraz is doing now. Except Fed made it look easy. Alcaraz is very intense; he makes a big job out of it. With Fed it was just, effortless. It's terrifying really. I can't imagine how scary it must have been to step onto the court against him.
@@darrenjohn8524 How is it even slightly relevant to OP? Do you know that when Sampras held the record of Slams with 14, he wasn't necessarily considered the GOAT over Borg or Laver?
@@funfor1life OP is trying to diminish nadal's and djokovic's career so I reminded OP for the grand slam count 🤣. Lies, once Sampras passed borg and Co, he was considered goat by the media. When nadal and djokovic were behind federer in the grand slam race , federer was considered goat by the media. When nadal and djokovic got ahead of federer in the grand slam race, the media tried inventing new criterias for federer to remain their GOAT 🤣.
@@darrenjohn8524 OP is me and I'm a huge Rafa fan so maybe you should just take comments for what they are and not project your own insecurities/paranoia onto what you read. Also, YOU seem to make the criteria for what defines the GOAT in a way that arranges you. Before Federer pulled ahead of Sampras, he was already considered the GOAT so no, the grand slam tally is not the only criterion. It is one for sure, just not the only one as history has proven. And imo, there's no way Djokovic is the GOAT. I believe he's on par with Nadal and Federer in terms of titles but is way behind in terms of how he redifined his sport, popularity, aura and legacy (for obvious reasons that have nothing to do with where he comes from). That's why Federer is to tennis what Michael Jordan is to basketball, whether you like it or not. And Jordan is considered the GOAT in spite of being beaten in so many statistical categories by other players for the fact that he played the game differently, with so much ease, grace and athleticism. He redefined his sport and became the face of basketball, raised its popularity to heights never seen before. If you don't have Jordan, you don't have modern scoring backcourt players (Kobe, LeBron, Curry). Likewise, no Fed, no Rafa and no Novak.
That was indeed his biggest chance of winning it or, at least make it a 5 setter if he took the first set 6-2 etc. Federers clay court pedigree has been put into the shadows because of Nadals incredible stats on the dirt. Also, comparing Federers hard- and grasscourt stats, clay is like "the forgotten child". And still, Federers clay court stats are easily top 5 of all time. Just a recap of the biggest ones he lost on clay: Monte Carlo: 4 finals, Rome: 4 finals, RG: 4 finals. He also had like a dozen of other big finals where he lost.That shows his pedigree on clay is even better than most in the history, he might even be top 3 or 4 in the alltime list of best clay courters.
Fed isn't underrated on clay, he's probably one of the top 5 clay courters of all time. His footwork, artistry and imagination on clay is a thing of beauty. Roger was a complete one off talent and we'll never see another player like him again.
@@smallcat5437 I am an old school 5.5 player in my early 50s and I will tell you that using too many drop shots was always looked at as not very gentleman/disrespectful thing to do or a sign of not willing to fight like a man against the other player... It was not tried very often...i watched thousands of old matches it was not something those guys went for... But nowadays Alcaraz it's making look like an art and the way he does it looks brilliant... It's just amazing... Obviously this is IMHO... but I traveled and played in many countries so I have some experience on this...
Thank you for saying what I sensed was true. Even today there is some machismo associated with hard strikes, even when they don’t get them the wins. Alcaraz has both. Alcaraz has lots of tools. But then again, so does Rublev. That is unless you ask Tsitsipas😅.
@@FLAC2023 I think at an amateur level dropshots if well executed are even more deadly im at 2.5/ 3.0 level , as my topspin forehand is a mess and I can't yet dictate with it i I think I have to play a lot of slices and dropshots it gives me greater margin for unforced errors
I don’t think he is underrated on clay. He was the second best clay-court player in the world for 4 to 5 years and everyone knew this. He just so happened to be around the same time the greatest clay-court player of all time existed
Federer was 4-4 against Djokovic on clay. It’s arguably his best surface Nole. If he was in the serve and volley era he’d arguably be tied for the best clay player of that generation
He won the French Open and 6 Masters (Madrid and Hamburg) on clay. I guess thats more than most specialists have. E.g. Thomas Muster has way more ATP wins on clay but also 1 RG and 6 Masters on clay. Kuerten has more RG but less Masters. For me he is a top ten player on clay of alltime.
You could argue that he is the second best clay-court player of all time. He would have seven French opens, and many more master titles on clay if Nadal was not there.
its not surprising. he did learn tennis on clay after all. at his prime, he was by a huge margin better than the rest of the tour on clay. he just had the bad luck of being in the same generation as Rafa. and even post prime, he could go toe to toe with Novak on clay.
Roger Federer is a great player on all surfaces and his clay court capability is real with no fuss about his achievements. However Rafael Nadal is and was a force of nature you know.😊
It's completely understandable if someone dislikes Roger, or Rafa, or Novak. That's because those haters are living pathetic life rather than being eternally memorized like those greatest players of all time. Those men took over the tennis world mostly two decades. It's simply epic.
For me it is simple... 1. He never thought that anybody could equal his amount of achievements.... 2. He has been excessively empathetic and did not use all his abilities for winning each of the matches making the others even fear playing with him (haven't you seen videos of him doing sneak attack to 2nd services? But he stopped doing it...What about confusing the opponents and making them to even fall on the ground by changing directions abruptly? He avoided doing such when others even fake bath interruptions to change the moment or do underarm serves).... 3. Too much hate from people that can't stand watching his refined technique and only value the numbers... I even have a Nadalist friend who always says that Federer is just like Ronaldinho pure fantasy playing but no achievements!!! Weren't Pele, Maradona, Ayrton Senna or Schumacher the best in their sports? Well they are not necessarily the ones with more championships won... There is a lot of people saying that Nadal is the GOAT and when Nole surpasses Nadal he will be the GOAT so what, is it all about the numbers? i think that depending on the reasons why each tennis player retires (like an injury like happened to RF) anybody with more than 15-20 slams is elegible to be considered the GOAT as otherwise Nadal and Nole will be switching that name a few times during next couple years.... an advice for everyone: unless you are watching a match like Rune vs Ruud or Sinner vs Alcaraz perhaps you might get bored with the level of players these days, then you can watch some RF match and be motivated to play tennis again.....IMHO..
@@andreasmissiroli6915 None of those players in the past would've won any RG title if they played in the same era as Nadal or the big 3. Federer was unmatched on clay and would beat everyone else by a landslide to win atleast 7 RG tittles from 2005-2011 if Nadal didn't exist
He is very far from being bad on clay. Most so-called "clay court specialists" don't reach four consecutive and five overall Roland Garros finals. He did that on his weakest surface.
Federer is one of the best clay courters of all time. It is just that Nadal is from another planet. Same can be said that Nadal is a one of the best grass and AO type hard court player. It's just that he faced Djokovic and Federer. Thats how the bars these athletes have set in tennis. We can be a fan of one but need to respect all 3 because of them many people watch tennis today.
Federer is one of the greatest players ever on clay. He is not considered duch inly because he pkayed at the same time as the greatest ever by a huge margin (Nadal). If Nadal weren't born he would have most likely won several Roland Garros's (4 or 5) plus many Rome and Montecarlo masters.
I think Djokovic was an overall better clay court player but his h2h with Federer was like dead even at 4 - 4. It's interesting how outside Nadal it's generally the one handers who can sneak a win here and there against Djokovic.
Federer was very good on clay but the surface definitely highlighted his weaknesses. Should have won more clay masters titles and probably should have nicked an ATP 500 in 2013.
Even at 2019 with his new racquet the result didn't change against Nadal Fed's backhand was still good he always made it to finals on Rg but the problem was going up against the greatest clay courter
@@Quality_Culture maybe if you put it that way But really , it’s not about power Federer backhand had such incredible variety , could slice , top spin or whatever with great disguise Furthermore , he used it more to open the court and find angles to then allow him using his greater weapon, his forehand
I don’t think he’s *criminally* underrated on clay. I think he’s still considered to have been very good on clay, it’s just that, well, Nadal existed. I do wonder how many French Opens Federer would have won had he not had to face him. He deserved to win more than one certainly. Same could probably be said of Nadal at the Aus Open.
Djokovic may have surpassed Federer on clay as well, but Federer's level on clay before Djokovic became dominant on all surfaces was second best to Rafa's. The fact that he only won one French open title is ridiculous. Without Rafa, Djoko and Fed would have won 5-6 French open titles each.
And without Fed, Nadal would've won 5 Wimbledons in total and without Djokovic would've won 4 AO and 5 UsO in total.. effectively making him GOAT on all surfaces and debunking the already stupid claim of him being only a "Clay God".
@@truthseekertitan3986utside 2006 and 07 I don't see Nadal winning more Wimbledon titles, so like 4 max. Also hard to predict how Nadal would have fared against Federer at the US open, especially 2011. He definitely would have won Aus 2019 as the field was weak.
@@14DANESSJ Nadal would've won 2011 and 2018 Wimbledon undisputedly if Djokovic was out of the picture. Probably 2019 one too if Fed wasn't supreme in the semifinal. That's already 6 but I settled for 5. Yeah 2011 USO final could've been interesting match up between Fedal but I'd still give Nadal slight edge here. This one is debatable, granted. And then there's 2017 AO final, Fed with his neo-BH and supreme belief was the only one in the world that could've stopped Nadal and to his credit, he did. In a freaking 5 sets marathon. That's the whole point of this long conversation. All 3 of them have spoiled each other's career to certain level that none can be considered undisputed goat. It's futile to argue which is the most prominent one in the Holy Trinity. Period.
All very interesting, to imagine how many more slams each of the big 3 would have won without the other two having been "in the way". I wonder how many more Roger could have won if he hadn't gotten in his own way on certain, rather large occasions...
Only Rafa manage to hold him being one of the greatest on Clay courts and win more titles and Roland Garros. Djokovic is superior as well, but not by much, and when he is on he could clearly beat him even on slow courts like Montecarlo.
I don't know about criminally underrated. I just remember that he was still a very good player on clay. You don't get to the finals of the biggest clay tournaments repeatedly without being very good. He just ran into someone who was better. It happens.
Certainly! Look at the fights between Fed and Nad, if you say Nad is the King if clay, you know what title you should give to Fed. To me, if Fed were just a little bit stronger that he could have won a few key points, he would’ve got a few more GS at FO
Very true ! To be good on clay you must be a "player", and that surely what was Federer ! Just have a look of his results against great clay players such as Ferrer (17-0 !) or Batista Agut (9-0 !). Without Nadal, Federer should have won 4 Roland Garros more...He is surely one of the greatest players on clay.
Well it’s like when I was young my fav player & world number 1 Ivan Lendl was not good at grass… just that he reached Wimbledon final twice. It’s like reaching the final doesn’t count … RF has played 5 French Open finals…just that he won only once…losing other 4 to Nadal … it’s fair to say it took another tennis great to stop Federer or else he would have had 4 more French Open and perhaps another 6-10 grandslam wins in the other 3 tournaments
Excellent players such us Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Alcaraz, Sinner, Rune always try to play their best at any surface and are very good at all of them. Other players such as Kyrgios or Medvedev are usually complaining about clay. Do clay court players complain so much about hard courts?
Good point but Fed grew up on clay up to his 16th birthday when he joined the tour. If you visit his old club you can see the clay court where he cried there after losing a match in his junior days
No Monte Carlo title, no Rome title 1 RG title, never beaten Rafa at RG oh yeah let’s say he’s criminally underrated when he’s rather overwhelmingly overrated.
He was not bad on clay at all but definitely not underrated. When only your 11 titles out of 103 are on clay you cant say that. it was his weakest surface the same way grass is for Nadal.
Definitely not Federer’s favourite surface, but let’s be honest, without Nadal he would have 4 or 5 RGs and an additional 7 or a clay masters 1000, which would put him top 5 all time on clay for sure. But Nadal exists, so what can you do.
@@hurlbut2005 without Nadal, Federer would never have been as good. Nadal pushed Federer to his limits and allowed him to get his incredible 3 slams in 2017 and 2018.
People think Fed is bad on clay because Nadal match is deadly for him, but he is easily top 5 clay courters of all time, considering the best match he's ever played was on clay
which Match are you considering his best match on clay? The 2011 Djokovic RG match? No shade, just curious.
@@fretstain probably the one lost in rome
@@fretstain also known (for me at least) as the "finger wagging" match !! ;-)
@@fretstain also known(for me still) as the match where I broke personal record for breathing apnea lasting for about 45 minutes ;-)
@@spideyocd underrated match. Better than the Wimbledon 08 final in my view.
Given his results in 2005,06,07,08,09,11,and 19, Federer could have had 7 FO titles without Nadal.
Lol he doesn't even have 7gs on any hc gs but he would win rg 7 times
Yeah.
But he didn't. Nadal is just unbeatable on clay.
And many Masters 1000
7 is perhaps an exaggeration, but he definitely could have won a few more.
Federer lost 4 finals and 2 semi finals against the best player to ever play on this surface...Without Nadal, we can argue that Fed could have won at least 3 more Roland Garros...so yeah, Fed was pretty strong on clay
Spot on! No doubt Fed would have won more RG's if Nadal wasn't there. Sadly, if if if, does not exist. What truly surprising is that Fed didn't win as much before Nadal came along, years between 2001-2004 where he could win more on clay in general. It's like he had no serious intentions of winning on clay and when Nadal came he had no choice but to improve big time, and still wasn't quite enough... Rome 2006 final "scarred him for life" on that surface, never been the same player on the dirt since then. Could've been so different if he took those match points but then we're back to: if if if does not exist :P
@@Askaa88 Federer only won his first grand slam at Wimbledon in 2003. He was not a top tier player before then. He had beaten Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001, but until Wimbledon 2003, he was not really a huge factor. He had a reputation of being all flash and no substance. During that period, Agassi was still very strong (was in fact at the time the oldest player to ever be ranked number 1), and of the younger generation, people were talking more about Hewitt, Roddick, Ferraro, Safin, and even Coria. People were calling Coria the next king of clay; that was before things imploded for him after his loss to Gaudio. Things really kicked into gear for Federer in 2004, but he ran into Kuerten (three-time champion) at the French. And by 2005, the Nadal era on clay had begun.
@@ER1CwC Kuerten, who was a better player than Federer on clay (and by far)
from 2005 to 2011 federer was actually really exellent on clay it's just that nadal was so good back then and on top of that he was such a nasty match up for federer
I think his footwork and positioning on clay is what makes him excellent, especially in that famous djokovic match at RG
Federer is pretty much the 2nd greatest clay courter of all time. He was always in the finals when Nadal was on his crazy clay streak.
he broke rafa's 81 match win streak
what a bullshit
damn it's like he is carresing the ball on those volleys , the footwork oh man he was a joy to watch
His head to head against Djokovic on clay is even
Kinda insane that he was so good on clay and only able to capture one French open title. The 2011 final could have turned out quite differently if Federer just converted that set point on the drop shot.
To beat in form novak and then lose to nadal is quite a shame
@@bryceswartz8657 Losing to Nadal on Clay is never a shame, ın fact you are facing the greatest Clay courter ever meaning more difficult than Novak that had always been the most difficult task for all Rg final
Interesting that he's 3-0 at the first clay court tourney, monte carlo (including a win in 2014), but 0-3 in Rome (including a loss in 2009). Shows that often Novak takes a bit longer to adjust to the clay, but once he does he's lethal
@@arunkrishnamoorthy9038 madrid is a fast clay court and rome a slow one.
This wasn't even the height of his clay powers!
I hope everybody realises that this 33 year-old Fed on his least favourite surface does everything better than Alcaraz on a tennis court at the moment, except for defending (which you don't have to do too much of when you hit winners off both wings left, right and centre, even against the best defensive players of all time, Novak). Not merely scary, otherworldly! Just look at Djokovic's face after the break in the second set. In theory, still a lot of potential for fighting back since it's early in the set but as he well knows Fed is in that zone where he's unplayable. He knew as well as anyone else that the match was over even though he was like 6 years younger and (even) fitter than Fed and should have believed there was some room for a comeback. That Fed would not allow any breathing room. Same thing happened to Rafa when he played Roger in 2017. Only match that wasnt an utter beat down was the AO final (much to the delight of the tennis fans). But the other matches (IW, Miami, Shanghai), Fed is 35/36 and he's leagues above Rafa in terms of level of play. Why was his prime long over though? Because of regularity. He wasnt able to produce in his 30's that level with the same consistency as he did in his best years (2004-2009). I would have LOVED to see prime Roger against prime Alcaraz, Sinner and Rune. Not talking about the old next gen which he obliterated while way past his prime. The man was a joke. GOAT
Exactly this. Old man Fed was doing what young man Alcaraz is doing now. Except Fed made it look easy. Alcaraz is very intense; he makes a big job out of it. With Fed it was just, effortless. It's terrifying really. I can't imagine how scary it must have been to step onto the court against him.
22 is bigger than 20😉
@@darrenjohn8524 How is it even slightly relevant to OP? Do you know that when Sampras held the record of Slams with 14, he wasn't necessarily considered the GOAT over Borg or Laver?
@@funfor1life OP is trying to diminish nadal's and djokovic's career so I reminded OP for the grand slam count 🤣. Lies, once Sampras passed borg and Co, he was considered goat by the media. When nadal and djokovic were behind federer in the grand slam race , federer was considered goat by the media. When nadal and djokovic got ahead of federer in the grand slam race, the media tried inventing new criterias for federer to remain their GOAT 🤣.
@@darrenjohn8524 OP is me and I'm a huge Rafa fan so maybe you should just take comments for what they are and not project your own insecurities/paranoia onto what you read. Also, YOU seem to make the criteria for what defines the GOAT in a way that arranges you. Before Federer pulled ahead of Sampras, he was already considered the GOAT so no, the grand slam tally is not the only criterion. It is one for sure, just not the only one as history has proven. And imo, there's no way Djokovic is the GOAT. I believe he's on par with Nadal and Federer in terms of titles but is way behind in terms of how he redifined his sport, popularity, aura and legacy (for obvious reasons that have nothing to do with where he comes from). That's why Federer is to tennis what Michael Jordan is to basketball, whether you like it or not. And Jordan is considered the GOAT in spite of being beaten in so many statistical categories by other players for the fact that he played the game differently, with so much ease, grace and athleticism. He redefined his sport and became the face of basketball, raised its popularity to heights never seen before. If you don't have Jordan, you don't have modern scoring backcourt players (Kobe, LeBron, Curry). Likewise, no Fed, no Rafa and no Novak.
His biggest miss was French Open 2011 final. The only legitimate time he could have beaten Rafa at RG and that was Rafa still at his peak
That was indeed his biggest chance of winning it or, at least make it a 5 setter if he took the first set 6-2 etc. Federers clay court pedigree has been put into the shadows because of Nadals incredible stats on the dirt. Also, comparing Federers hard- and grasscourt stats, clay is like "the forgotten child". And still, Federers clay court stats are easily top 5 of all time. Just a recap of the biggest ones he lost on clay: Monte Carlo: 4 finals, Rome: 4 finals, RG: 4 finals. He also had like a dozen of other big finals where he lost.That shows his pedigree on clay is even better than most in the history, he might even be top 3 or 4 in the alltime list of best clay courters.
2005 - 2006 - 2011 - 2019
Federer is behind Nadal and Djokovic on clay, but he's very high on the list. Roger is underrated indeed on clay.
Fed isn't underrated on clay, he's probably one of the top 5 clay courters of all time. His footwork, artistry and imagination on clay is a thing of beauty.
Roger was a complete one off talent and we'll never see another player like him again.
Fed was brilliant on clay...
Imagine if he had used the drop shot more...😂
the forehand drop shot he showed in rg 2009 was deadly but he just wasnt able to develop them
(maybe thats what alcaraz is doing right now)
@@smallcat5437 I am an old school 5.5 player in my early 50s and I will tell you that using too many drop shots was always looked at as not very gentleman/disrespectful thing to do or a sign of not willing to fight like a man against the other player... It was not tried very often...i watched thousands of old matches it was not something those guys went for...
But nowadays Alcaraz it's making look like an art and the way he does it looks brilliant... It's just amazing...
Obviously this is IMHO... but I traveled and played in many countries so I have some experience on this...
Thank you for saying what I sensed was true. Even today there is some machismo associated with hard strikes, even when they don’t get them the wins. Alcaraz has both. Alcaraz has lots of tools. But then again, so does Rublev. That is unless you ask Tsitsipas😅.
@@FLAC2023 I think at an amateur level dropshots if well executed are even more deadly im at 2.5/ 3.0 level , as my topspin forehand is a mess and I can't yet dictate with it i I think I have to play a lot of slices and dropshots it gives me greater margin for unforced errors
@@tennnis498 Rublev might not have quite as many tools as Alcaraz but Rublev's got BWEEEEH
He sure was. If there was no Rafa Nadal, Roger would have dominated on clay courts, too, and would have won more than one title at Roland Garros.
40-15 saga(this time it hurted Nole).
djokovic wrist injury in montecarlo 2014 play below his level
He has one of highest win rate on clay, its just Rafa is too good.
Probably the best clay court palyer after Nadal.
nop, djokovic is rght after nadal, Federer faill many times to Rafa with a poor record of 2-14 in clay
@@Logan00710 urmmm Novak only beat Nadal at RG as Rafa started to decline slightly... Fed faced a different rafa than Novak did.
I don’t think he is underrated on clay. He was the second best clay-court player in the world for 4 to 5 years and everyone knew this. He just so happened to be around the same time the greatest clay-court player of all time existed
Federer was 4-4 against Djokovic on clay. It’s arguably his best surface Nole. If he was in the serve and volley era he’d arguably be tied for the best clay player of that generation
Djokovic only has hard hitting shots, not much variation. Its Federer who makes opponent dance on the court with his variations in shots.
the point at 0:52 showcases Fed's Unreal speed and court coverage
Lucky to have lived in times to see Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic play.
He won the French Open and 6 Masters (Madrid and Hamburg) on clay. I guess thats more than most specialists have. E.g. Thomas Muster has way more ATP wins on clay but also 1 RG and 6 Masters on clay. Kuerten has more RG but less Masters. For me he is a top ten player on clay of alltime.
You could argue that he is the second best clay-court player of all time. He would have seven French opens, and many more master titles on clay if Nadal was not there.
its not surprising. he did learn tennis on clay after all. at his prime, he was by a huge margin better than the rest of the tour on clay. he just had the bad luck of being in the same generation as Rafa. and even post prime, he could go toe to toe with Novak on clay.
Roger Federer is a great player on all surfaces and his clay court capability is real with no fuss about his achievements.
However Rafael Nadal is and was a force of nature you know.😊
It's completely understandable if someone dislikes Roger, or Rafa, or Novak. That's because those haters are living pathetic life rather than being eternally memorized like those greatest players of all time. Those men took over the tennis world mostly two decades. It's simply epic.
the defence from novak, the attack from roger its so good.
It made those matches so fun to watch
For me it is simple... 1. He never thought that anybody could equal his amount of achievements.... 2. He has been excessively empathetic and did not use all his abilities for winning each of the matches making the others even fear playing with him (haven't you seen videos of him doing sneak attack to 2nd services? But he stopped doing it...What about confusing the opponents and making them to even fall on the ground by changing directions abruptly? He avoided doing such when others even fake bath interruptions to change the moment or do underarm serves).... 3. Too much hate from people that can't stand watching his refined technique and only value the numbers... I even have a Nadalist friend who always says that Federer is just like Ronaldinho pure fantasy playing but no achievements!!!
Weren't Pele, Maradona, Ayrton Senna or Schumacher the best in their sports? Well they are not necessarily the ones with more championships won... There is a lot of people saying that Nadal is the GOAT and when Nole surpasses Nadal he will be the GOAT so what, is it all about the numbers? i think that depending on the reasons why each tennis player retires (like an injury like happened to RF) anybody with more than 15-20 slams is elegible to be considered the GOAT as otherwise Nadal and Nole will be switching that name a few times during next couple years.... an advice for everyone: unless you are watching a match like Rune vs Ruud or Sinner vs Alcaraz perhaps you might get bored with the level of players these days, then you can watch some RF match and be motivated to play tennis again.....IMHO..
Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are the best clay court players ever based on results.
what a bullshit
With 1 and 2 French Open for Roger and Novak? Tennis didn't start in 2005... 😂
you forgot a player called Borg - and what about Kuerten, Wilander, Lendl, Bruguera?
@@andreasmissiroli6915 None of those players in the past would've won any RG title if they played in the same era as Nadal or the big 3. Federer was unmatched on clay and would beat everyone else by a landslide to win atleast 7 RG tittles from 2005-2011 if Nadal didn't exist
It was not that he was bad on clay, he was just uncomfortable playing a lefty like Nadal.
He is very far from being bad on clay. Most so-called "clay court specialists" don't reach four consecutive and five overall Roland Garros finals. He did that on his weakest surface.
Federer is one of the best clay courters of all time. It is just that Nadal is from another planet. Same can be said that Nadal is a one of the best grass and AO type hard court player. It's just that he faced Djokovic and Federer. Thats how the bars these athletes have set in tennis. We can be a fan of one but need to respect all 3 because of them many people watch tennis today.
Damn.. Federer played some great shots in this match. It s a mirracle the first set was tied till the end
Tennis gods: we’ve finally created to perfect player who will dominate on every single surface
Tennis god who just finished creating Nadal: 👀
Federer is one of the greatest players ever on clay. He is not considered duch inly because he pkayed at the same time as the greatest ever by a huge margin (Nadal). If Nadal weren't born he would have most likely won several Roland Garros's (4 or 5) plus many Rome and Montecarlo masters.
Federer is the Goat ❤
I think Djokovic was an overall better clay court player but his h2h with Federer was like dead even at 4 - 4. It's interesting how outside Nadal it's generally the one handers who can sneak a win here and there against Djokovic.
Interesting that Fed is 3-0 against Novak at Monte Carlo, 0-3 at Rome, and 1-1 at the French.
Federer was very good on clay but the surface definitely highlighted his weaknesses. Should have won more clay masters titles and probably should have nicked an ATP 500 in 2013.
quem liga pra números é calculadora, eu como espectador sempre vou amar um belo jogo, com estilo e classe, por isso Roger é o maior de todos.
WE ALL KNOW HE IS GREAT ON CLAY...STOP SAYING UNDERRATED DORK
when Federer attack with his backhard on the lines like with his forehand you know there is no chance for the other player no matter who he is
So true . With his weak backhand on clay he still has an enviable clay court record
Federer’s backhand is weak ?
C’mon man
Even at 2019 with his new racquet the result didn't change against Nadal
Fed's backhand was still good he always made it to finals on Rg but the problem was going up against the greatest clay courter
@mugada Bhargava: maybe somewhat weak compared to his forehand. But not weak compared to other 1-handed BH players.
@@Mythos189 it was a real pity the 2019 match was played in such windy conditions. Nadal just had a much safer game in that condition.
@@Quality_Culture maybe if you put it that way
But really , it’s not about power
Federer backhand had such incredible variety , could slice , top spin or whatever with great disguise
Furthermore , he used it more to open the court and find angles to then allow him using his greater weapon, his forehand
I don’t think he’s *criminally* underrated on clay. I think he’s still considered to have been very good on clay, it’s just that, well, Nadal existed. I do wonder how many French Opens Federer would have won had he not had to face him. He deserved to win more than one certainly. Same could probably be said of Nadal at the Aus Open.
Djokovic may have surpassed Federer on clay as well, but Federer's level on clay before Djokovic became dominant on all surfaces was second best to Rafa's. The fact that he only won one French open title is ridiculous. Without Rafa, Djoko and Fed would have won 5-6 French open titles each.
And without Fed, Nadal would've won 5 Wimbledons in total and without Djokovic would've won 4 AO and 5 UsO in total.. effectively making him GOAT on all surfaces and debunking the already stupid claim of him being only a "Clay God".
@@truthseekertitan3986 Nice job exposing the hypocrisy by federer and djokovic fans 😂.
@@truthseekertitan3986utside 2006 and 07 I don't see Nadal winning more Wimbledon titles, so like 4 max. Also hard to predict how Nadal would have fared against Federer at the US open, especially 2011. He definitely would have won Aus 2019 as the field was weak.
@@14DANESSJ Nadal would've won 2011 and 2018 Wimbledon undisputedly if Djokovic was out of the picture. Probably 2019 one too if Fed wasn't supreme in the semifinal. That's already 6 but I settled for 5. Yeah 2011 USO final could've been interesting match up between Fedal but I'd still give Nadal slight edge here. This one is debatable, granted. And then there's 2017 AO final, Fed with his neo-BH and supreme belief was the only one in the world that could've stopped Nadal and to his credit, he did. In a freaking 5 sets marathon. That's the whole point of this long conversation. All 3 of them have spoiled each other's career to certain level that none can be considered undisputed goat. It's futile to argue which is the most prominent one in the Holy Trinity. Period.
All very interesting, to imagine how many more slams each of the big 3 would have won without the other two having been "in the way". I wonder how many more Roger could have won if he hadn't gotten in his own way on certain, rather large occasions...
Only Rafa manage to hold him being one of the greatest on Clay courts and win more titles and Roland Garros. Djokovic is superior as well, but not by much, and when he is on he could clearly beat him even on slow courts like Montecarlo.
yes he also can Play on clay..
Federer and Djokovic are propably number 2 and 3 of all time on clay, but Nadal is just so good that no one else matters.
Borg and Lendl are ahead on clay all time
this must be a joke :D@@dewman7477
I don't know about criminally underrated. I just remember that he was still a very good player on clay. You don't get to the finals of the biggest clay tournaments repeatedly without being very good. He just ran into someone who was better. It happens.
Certainly! Look at the fights between Fed and Nad, if you say Nad is the King if clay, you know what title you should give to Fed. To me, if Fed were just a little bit stronger that he could have won a few key points, he would’ve got a few more GS at FO
I think Federer was the second best player on clay after Nadal !
❤
Very true ! To be good on clay you must be a "player", and that surely what was Federer ! Just have a look of his results against great clay players such as Ferrer (17-0 !) or Batista Agut (9-0 !). Without Nadal, Federer should have won 4 Roland Garros more...He is surely one of the greatest players on clay.
If only Federer had this racquet all the time things were different
Nadal ruined everyone's statistics on Clay Lol
yes and Federer specially
When Federer played amazing it was legit scary
Federer without Nadal wins 3-4 RG ... He was equally as good as on hard, grass etc
Super 👏👏👏👍👍👍💪✌️🔥
Nice video btw this clip is a bit fast forwarded right?
Well it’s like when I was young my fav player & world number 1 Ivan Lendl was not good at grass… just that he reached Wimbledon final twice. It’s like reaching the final doesn’t count … RF has played 5 French Open finals…just that he won only once…losing other 4 to Nadal … it’s fair to say it took another tennis great to stop Federer or else he would have had 4 more French Open and perhaps another 6-10 grandslam wins in the other 3 tournaments
Agreed
I'm sure if Nadal hasn't existed Roger would have had multiple masters on clay but still feel Novak would have taken care of him as well on clay
on prime vs prime novak lead 60-40, sure is better than federer was
@@Logan00710where did you even get 60-40 against prime Federer that’s a made up stat
He's added a better game every year
Only because of nadal is there at the same time..if not, he will have won more titles on clay
Excellent players such us Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Alcaraz, Sinner, Rune always try to play their best at any surface and are very good at all of them.
Other players such as Kyrgios or
Medvedev are usually complaining about clay.
Do clay court players complain so much about hard courts?
Good point but Fed grew up on clay up to his 16th birthday when he joined the tour. If you visit his old club you can see the clay court where he cried there after losing a match in his junior days
Medvedev is the rome champ now haha. Clayvedev to rule
2nd best player on Clay.
If Federer remains single with no kids till his thirties, he would've win 40 or more grand slams. Whatever he's the GOAT in tennis..
Fed cud have been regarded as GOAT if it wasnt for Novak who continues to prove himself as the GOATest of GOATs
Criminal title but i hadn't actually seen that match 😊 Roger forever
Alcaraz n'a pas inventé la demi-volée pour casser l'échange.
Roger Federer la pratiquait déjà !!!
What year was this
2014 Monte Carlo
Let's show some 40-15.
All greats are because there is someone called Nadal ..
No Monte Carlo title, no Rome title 1 RG title, never beaten Rafa at RG oh yeah let’s say he’s criminally underrated when he’s rather overwhelmingly overrated.
fed isn't underrated anywhere stop capping
what an awful title
If it was not for Nadal, Federer would have 5 Roland Garros
He was not bad on clay at all but definitely not underrated. When only your 11 titles out of 103 are on clay you cant say that. it was his weakest surface the same way grass is for Nadal.
Definitely not Federer’s favourite surface, but let’s be honest, without Nadal he would have 4 or 5 RGs and an additional 7 or a clay masters 1000, which would put him top 5 all time on clay for sure. But Nadal exists, so what can you do.
@@hurlbut2005 without Nadal, Federer would never have been as good. Nadal pushed Federer to his limits and allowed him to get his incredible 3 slams in 2017 and 2018.
NADAL BORG KUERTEN WILANDER LENDL VILAS BRUGUERA DJOKOVIC - 8 PLAYERS THAT ARE WITHOUT ANY DOUBT BETTER CLAY COURT PLAYERS THAN FEDERER