Examining Roger Federer’s clay-court legacy

It is my firm belief that the whole surface superiority debate in tennis is strange. Have you ever wondered how tennis remains to be the only sport where athletes are asked to prove their mettle by playing on surfaces completely foreign to the turf they learned the game on? Still, when fans like us debate the greatest players of all times, we instantly check to see if our idols have won on all three surfaces and all four Grand Slams.

Roger Federer's return to tennis for the first time since the 2016 Australian Open was a stellar 6-3, 6-4 triumph over a good clay-court player in Guillermo Garcia-Lopez at the Monte Carlo Masters. The Swiss Maestro came out with flying colours in knocking off the rust and showing no ill effects from his recent knee surgery and rehabilitation.

So, was Federer's legacy already great regardless of what surface he played?

Clay has generally been considered his weakest surface, which has often led to divided opinions about his success on it. Is he an all-time great on clay? Just very good?

No, it is even more complicated when comparing across eras and generations, so where does Federer rank in comparison to the other all-time greats on clay?

In the 1970s

None were aware what Federer would do against the likes of Bjorn Borg or Guillermo Vilas, the two clay-court titans of the 1970s. Borg produced his version of sweeping high topspin with the small head of a wooden racket and won six French Open titles. His fitness and footwork were supreme, traits that Federer has embodied.

While it always remained uncertain that Borg came to the modern era and beat Federer with modern equipment, the Swiss always got the nod for his gaudy numbers at the Roland Garros. He won 30 total clay-court titles and held a 251-41 (.860) record on clay.

Federer's totals include one French Open title and four finals losses at Roland Garros. He has 11 total clay-court titles and is 211-66 (.762) on clay.

In the 1980s

Following Borg's virtual departure from the sport in early 1980s, Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander each won three French Open titles with very different styles.

Truth be told, Lendl with 28 clay-court titles might be considered the easier opponent for Federer in that the Swiss is better at all of the things Lendl did best, especially with his footwork and underrated defense. Wilander, on the other hand, may have stolen some matches by absorbing Federer's best shots.

In the 1990s

The 1990s was a significant era for many clay-court stars, but it lacked a truly dominant champion at the French Open. Sure, Jim Courier and Sergi Bruguera each bagged a number of titles at the Roland Garros, but the former was way ahead of the curve for only a couple years in slugging his way to those titles. His footwork and longevity on clay were nowhere near Federer's.

However, by 1995, Bruguera paled next to the ferocious left-hander Thomas Muster, a prototype that foreshadowed the way Rafael Nadal would play, at least offensively.

Also Read: Roger Federer: Carving a legacy that defies time

There was no stopping Muster between 1995 and 1996, but he only clinched the 1995 French Open. Perhaps that one year, he would have bludgeoned Federer's backhand with his physical style, but Muster also had much of his early career thwarted by a few lost years in recovering from a car accident.

Then came along Gustavo Kuerten, who reigned between 1997 and 2001 and won three French Open titles with graceful, smooth groundstrokes and athleticism. His 189-80 .703 record and 20 clay-court titles may not be as impressive as a few other legends, but he showed what he is capable of doing with his win over Federer at the Roland Garros.

Against Rafael Nadal

Nadal vs Federer is an easy comparison. Anyone who has followed tennis for at least the last 15 years knows Nadal built his clay-court legend on the foundation of Federer. No second thoughts about that.

Nadal's clay-court game was superior in terms of wins, titles, French Open titles and in punishing Federer in head-to-head matches. There is no contest with 63 titles of the 70 finals he has contested (88.6%), which is 14 more than the second-most successful clay-courter of all time, Guillermo Vilas, 23 more than third-placed Thomas Muster and 31 more than the great Borg.

We will probably never see a player as dominant on clay ever again, an argument we put to bed ten years ago. It also raises the question what Federer would have accomplished on clay had Nadal never played professional tennis. Would he have been esteemed as the all-time clay-court king? There is an argument here.

Against Novak Djokovic

Until 2015, Djokovic also had a similar problem as Nadal on clay, but his 80.4 percent of winning record in his 322 matches on clay could also be bolstered with more legacy-defining wins.However, of all the three surfaces on the ATP Tour, clay is the one for which Djokovic has the lowest win-percentage. But it is not a bad win-percentage at all.

Until some years ago, Federer kept his edge on the Serb, primarily because he was the 2009 French Open champion who could rarely get an opportunity to break down the door with Nadal standing in the way. Djokovic features in the top ten of all time for most clay final appearances. Interestingly though, this is one list of clay achievements that Nadal does not lead.

We have all been guilty of pegging Federer and clay as an inharmonious relationship. His results on the red dust frequently would get mentioned with a breath of negativity. There are even a few critics who somehow express his clay-court legacy as some kind of failure.

It is no less than a minor Federer backlash, a perceived blemish in a near-perfect body of work, but the scrutiny is part of the price tag for his greatness. He was so dominant on grass and hard courts that anything less on clay is a shadow of his greater achievements.

To say that Federer should have been a better clay-court player is like suggesting that Leonardo da Vinci should have been a better painter. The genius and artistry of da Vinci transcends art, and thankfully so. Now we of course would not ask him to paint more if he had to sacrifice his inventions, drawings, and other talents.

There will also be the memories of Federer's artistry on clay, of each and every time he competed in a big match. He always brought a presence, a flair and charisma not so different from Gustavo Kuerten, and likewise many beautifully struck shots from graceful footwork.

The debate over whether Federer is the greatest player in tennis history does not anymore hinge on one surface, rather on his game.