PDA

View Full Version : Nadal's balanced record across all surfaces, great success on each!


anointedone
07-11-2007, 02:59 PM
I dont think people appreciate enough how complete and extremely strong Nadal has shown to be across all 3 major surfaces- clay, grass (even if grass is different and slower now, but that is not his fault), hard courts. Just look at each:

Clay- do I really need to say anything, 3 Frenchs, 3 Monte Carlos, 3 Romas

Hard courts- At the tender age of 21, 3 Masters titles on hard court

Grass-2 Wimbledon runner up plates at the tender age of 21

Indoor hard court- 2-1 in round robin vs only top 10 opponents, then losing in the semis

Alexandros
07-11-2007, 09:40 PM
Very balanced indeed, those 3 French Opens really do stack up well against 0 Wimbledons, Aussies and US Opens.

sondraj
07-11-2007, 10:08 PM
Do you guys only count success in terms of grand slams. I think you all are a little spoiled by Fed's slam titles. He is only 21, so I guess by you alls logic the rest of the field don't even qualify as success stories at all.

Including Nole, Gasquet, and the rest of the field aye

serve/and/volley
07-11-2007, 10:50 PM
Grand Slams are just part of the equation. Better would be to count overall titles according to surface, not just wins. Here are titles by surface according to Wikipedia:

Nadal
- Hard (5)
- Clay (17)
- Grass (0)
- Carpet (0)

Federer
- Hard (32)
- Clay (6)
- Grass (9)
- Carpet (2)

Sampras
- Hard (37)
- Clay (3)
- Grass (10)
- Carpet (14)

Agassi
- Hard (46)
- Clay (7)
- Grass (1)
- Carpet (6)

Rataplan
07-12-2007, 12:22 AM
Do you guys only count success in terms of grand slams.
That's pretty much how it's done as far as I can tell. The summary of all great arguments on this site is:
11 >>>>3.

No need to try and be subtle, dig deeper in your conversations, all you need is 11>3.


***

Comparing the titles of a 21 year old with the achievements of Sampras or Agassi with their entire career behind them is rather pointless, don't you think?

Rhino
07-12-2007, 12:52 AM
This just seems to be someone who's still buzzing from Nadals Wimbledon final appearance looking everywhere for more ways to praise him. Last year he went on an 8 month title drought after Wimbledon so lets see what happens.

keithchircop
07-12-2007, 01:05 AM
Nadal lost.

Rataplan
07-12-2007, 01:06 AM
lol

You guys really have a hard time reading anything positive about Nadal, don't you?

edmondsm
07-12-2007, 01:12 AM
Very balanced indeed, those 3 French Opens really do stack up well against 0 Wimbledons, Aussies and US Opens.

Hah, love the response. Unfair as it is.

Rafa has incredible all-court results. Way better than the "all-courters". (Nalbandian, Moya, Hewitt) I don't know name some more.

His 3 straight FO's make him look like a clayer just like Roger's slam totals make him look like he sucks on clay. See the point.

I like the point that you bring indirectly, Alexandros, because it shows us once again that there should be another slam on clay. Fast green stuff. It would be awesome.

Kim
07-12-2007, 01:45 AM
Success is measured by titles. Nadal's record is so lopsided in favor of clay, how can that be called "great success on each" unless you're a troll like anointedone??

TheNatural
07-12-2007, 01:47 AM
Feds 9 attempts at the French Open for 0 wins make it look like he sucks on clay.

Hah, love the response. Unfair as it is.

Rafa has incredible all-court results. Way better than the "all-courters". (Nalbandian, Moya, Hewitt) I don't know name some more.

His 3 straight FO's make him look like a clayer just like Roger's slam totals make him look like he sucks on clay. See the point.

I like the point that you bring indirectly, Alexandros, because it shows us once again that there should be another slam on clay. Fast green stuff. It would be awesome.

Rhino
07-12-2007, 01:49 AM
lol

You guys really have a hard time reading anything positive about Nadal, don't you?

Not at all, I am a fan of Rafa and a fan of tennis. I just like to keep things within the realms of reality, and as the dust is still settling from Wimbledon, there are still a few over excited people on this board who think he is the second coming rather than the second ranked player. As keithchircop said, he lost. Some people are actually seeing it differently. He played so well so it's like he won right? No, he lost, and now he faces the 2nd half of the year, the US hardcourt season, which didn't yeald a single final for him last year. I think we should see what happens and stick to the facts.

Rataplan
07-12-2007, 02:28 AM
Well, yes. It's a bit déjà vu from last year perhaps. Indeed, it remains to be seen what he does after Wimbledon. Until he proves me wrong, I still think that Nadal is vulnerable against players like Blake on hardcourts.

However, that still doesn't change the fact that many posters feel the need to reduce a conversation about Nadal to a dirtballing level.
Besides, I don't think that most posters on this forum are interested in a conversation in the realms of reality. They would much rather reduce a conversation to 11>3 + 3 all on clay. The day those posters are told to get real by the majority of posters here is the day we're getting closer to a realistic conversation.

keithchircop
07-12-2007, 02:50 AM
when federer lost the FO final, i said that fed is the 2nd best on clay right now.
now nadal has lost the wimbledon final, i say he's the 2nd best on grass, maybe tieing with djokovic and hewitt.

"Nadal's balanced record across all surfaces, great success on each!"

come on man, what about hardcourts?

jelle v
07-12-2007, 03:23 AM
Nadal is just a very, very, very good tennisplayer. Incredible talent..

I'm a big Federer fan and op to Wimbledon 2007 didn't think very highly of Nadal as an all-courter, but he proved me wrong. I'm really impressed by his achievements. If he can play agressively on hard-court like at Wimbledon he will be the one dominating tennis once Federer retires.

Actually.. after Wimbledon I have changed my mind about who will win the Calender Slam first. I just don't see Federer beating Nadal at the French, but I do see Nadal beating Federer at Wimbledon. So sadly enough I think it will be more likely Nadal that will take a Calender Slam instead of Federer. :(

gugarafa
07-12-2007, 03:42 AM
me too....LOL

Andres
07-12-2007, 04:19 AM
Rafa has incredible all-court results. Way better than the "all-courters". (Nalbandian, Moya, Hewitt) I don't know name some more.
I'll take Nalbandian's final at Wimby, SF at the Aussie, SF at the USO (with MP on the eventual champion that year) and Championship on TMC, over Nadal's QF at the Aussie and QF at the USO (where he was beaten... somehow badly)

Nadal outperforms Nalbandian at the French, and Wimbledon (three titles to two SF, and two finals to one) and Nalbandian outperforms Nadal on AO, USO and TMC, on carpet. How is that WAAAAY better than him?

Davydenko is more an all-surface than Hewitt... but Hewitt sucked on clay, and Davy sucked on grass.

Not that I'm taking any credit from Nadal. He'll probably win more GS, even outside the French, while Nalbandian probably won't ever win one. But to discredit him like that is ridiculous.

Still, Federer and him are the only active players to have made it to the SF of every major (I should check Henman's results at AO and USO, though)

caulcano
07-12-2007, 04:37 AM
Nadal is just a very, very, very good tennisplayer. Incredible talent..

I'm a big Federer fan and op to Wimbledon 2007 didn't think very highly of Nadal as an all-courter, but he proved me wrong. I'm really impressed by his achievements. If he can play agressively on hard-court like at Wimbledon he will be the one dominating tennis once Federer retires.

Actually.. after Wimbledon I have changed my mind about who will win the Calender Slam first. I just don't see Federer beating Nadal at the French, but I do see Nadal beating Federer at Wimbledon. So sadly enough I think it will be more likely Nadal that will take a Calender Slam instead of Federer. :(

Federer has stated he'd love to play at the 2012 Olympics (5 years time). I honestly can't see Nadal playing much longer than that because by that time he'd lost the advantages he has as a younger player, and I can't see him carrying on as a has-been on the tour, he'll have too much pride.

However, I do think Nadal will get the #1 probably mid-2008 if he contiues his current level of play.

jelle v
07-12-2007, 04:55 AM
Federer has stated he'd love to play at the 2012 Olympics (5 years time). I honestly can't see Nadal playing much longer than that because by that time he'd lost the advantages he has as a younger player, and I can't see him carrying on as a has-been on the tour, he'll have too much pride.

However, I do think Nadal will get the #1 probably mid-2008 if he contiues his current level of play.

2012 is in 5 years.. by then Nadal will be 26.. Why would he have quit tennis by then? :confused:

The only thing I wonder about, is if Nadal can mantain his healthy physique. If he succeeds at that, I don't see any reason why he won't still be the second best player in the world.

35ft6
07-12-2007, 05:08 AM
I agree. Watching Wimbledon set by set, as time permits, and I'm amazed how Nadal has Federer on the defensive more often than the other way around. Really, from what I've seen in the first 1 and a half sets, and the fifth set, if Nadal had a serve as good as Roger's, he would be a Wimbledon champion right now.

The completeness of his game is incredibly underrated. His forehand looks much deadlier than Roger's so far, and he's attacking the net more than Federer and he looks natural doing it. Is he a better player than Roger? Not saying that. But he very will could have beat Roger in the finals. McEnroe was commenting on his great hands, the footwork on his volleys, his superb half volleys.

There's really no reason why Nadal can't firmly establish himself as a top 3 player on every surface. It's just that he's unbeatable on clay, so maybe his other accomplishments seem meh, but in the last two years, he's proven himself to be the second best player in the world on grass, which is as far from clay as you can get. And so far this year, he could be considered top 5 on hard courts, winning a masters, losing in the quarters at the Aussie.

Should be an interesting summer. But my respect for Nadal is growing. I like his determination, his fight, and I'm noticing how complete a player he is. He can be considered, at this point, an all court player. He's certainly capable. He should continue his more aggressive grass style during the hard court season, especially during the US Open, which some now think is the fastest surface of all the Slams.

caulcano
07-12-2007, 05:15 AM
2012 is in 5 years.. by then Nadal will be 26.. Why would he have quit tennis by then? :confused:

The only thing I wonder about, is if Nadal can mantain his healthy physique. If he succeeds at that, I don't see any reason why he won't still be the second best player in the world.


Like you say If Nadal, or Federer for that matter can maintain their healthy physique. But playing at the very top echelon of tennis is very taxing on the body and the way Nadal plays it will take it's toll sooner rather than later (both physically & mentally).

Like all sports, ALOT of the players/people at the top simply don't go through the motions of competing. If they start to feel as though they cannot win a tournament, then they will probably retire.

sondraj
07-12-2007, 05:40 AM
Nadal lost.

Nadal only got outplayed for a set and a tiebreak, unfortunately that was enough to win Fed the match but where was Fed for the rest of the match.

Benhur
07-12-2007, 06:11 AM
I agree. Watching Wimbledon set by set, as time permits, and I'm amazed how Nadal has Federer on the defensive more often than the other way around. Really, from what I've seen in the first 1 and a half sets, and the fifth set, if Nadal had a serve as good as Roger's, he would be a Wimbledon champion right now.

The completeness of his game is incredibly underrated. His forehand looks much deadlier than Roger's so far, and he's attacking the net more than Federer and he looks natural doing it. Is he a better player than Roger? Not saying that. But he very will could have beat Roger in the finals. McEnroe was commenting on his great hands, the footwork on his volleys, his superb half volleys.

There's really no reason why Nadal can't firmly establish himself as a top 3 player on every surface. It's just that he's unbeatable on clay, so maybe his other accomplishments seem meh, but in the last two years, he's proven himself to be the second best player in the world on grass, which is as far from clay as you can get. And so far this year, he could be considered top 5 on hard courts, winning a masters, losing in the quarters at the Aussie.

Should be an interesting summer. But my respect for Nadal is growing. I like his determination, his fight, and I'm noticing how complete a player he is. He can be considered, at this point, an all court player. He's certainly capable. He should continue his more aggressive grass style during the hard court season, especially during the US Open, which some now think is the fastest surface of all the Slams.

I agree. Barring injuries, he is a top 3 player on every surface. The possibility of injury, however, is something he and his entourage are very aware of. One of his feet has given him trouble and kept him from playing for a while. This problem seems to flare up always during hardcourt play. The foot was starting to bother him again this year after two hardcourt tournaments (Indian Wells, Miami) and it was the reason he refused to play Davis Cup. According to a recent article in the Spanish newspaper ABC, his team is now considering altering his schedule this year to try and relieve some stress from that foot. To this effect they say they are considering dropping Dubai and another indoor and replacing them with clay tournaments, so he can still get points but protect his foot. I agree that with his style of play, hardcourt tennis is something he should be very careful with and probably reduce to a strict minimum if he wants to stay healthy. If he overdoes it, hardcourts may end up destroying his feet and probably his knees.

http://tinyurl.com/2lkv88

keithchircop
07-12-2007, 06:25 AM
Nadal only got outplayed for a set and a tiebreak, unfortunately that was enough to win Fed the match but where was Fed for the rest of the match.

Don't be sore, hon.

sondraj
07-12-2007, 06:50 AM
Don't be sore, hon.

Terribly sore. No one deserved that title more than rafa this year. Next year might be a different story

Eviscerator
07-12-2007, 07:35 AM
Grand Slams are just part of the equation. Better would be to count overall titles according to surface, not just wins. Here are titles by surface according to Wikipedia:

Nadal
- Hard (5)
- Clay (17)
- Grass (0)
- Carpet (0)

Federer
- Hard (32)
- Clay (6)
- Grass (9)
- Carpet (2)

Sampras
- Hard (37)
- Clay (3)
- Grass (10)
- Carpet (14)

Agassi
- Hard (46)
- Clay (7)
- Grass (1)
- Carpet (6)

Thanks for the stats.

FiveO
07-12-2007, 07:44 AM
Grand Slams are just part of the equation. Better would be to count overall titles according to surface, not just wins. Here are titles by surface according to Wikipedia:

Nadal
- Hard (5)
- Clay (17)
- Grass (0)
- Carpet (0)

Federer
- Hard (32)
- Clay (6)
- Grass (9)
- Carpet (2)...

Expanding on the theme:

According to the ATP site in International to Grand Slam events:

- Hard titles (12) including 1 Major and 4 Master Series events
- Hard finals ( 8 ) including 1 Major and 3 Master Series events

- Clay titles (5)
- Clay finals (2)

- Carpet titles (1)

- Grass titles (4)
- Grass finals (2) both at Majors, the giveaway....

...that's right Andy "clay is not my best surface" Roddick. For what seems a fairly "unbalanced" game pretty diverse results.

Rhino
07-12-2007, 07:50 AM
Terribly sore. No one deserved that title more than rafa this year. Next year might be a different story

you've got to be joking, he lost like 8 sets or something at this years Wimbledon, narrowly escaping defeats from Robin Soderling (!??), Youzhny (he was being destroyed easily before Youz's back went), and even a tired Djoko managed a set off him before he collapsed with fatigue. And then he played the best tennis of his life in the final and still lost.
Federer upped his game when it really mattered. History will only remember that Federer was the champion.

sondraj
07-12-2007, 07:58 AM
you've got to be joking, he lost like 8 sets or something at this years Wimbledon, narrowly escaping defeats from Robin Soderling (!??), Youzhny (he was being destroyed easily before Youz's back went), and even a tired Djoko managed a set off him before he collapsed with fatigue. And then he played the best tennis of his life in the final and still lost.
Federer upped his game when it really mattered. History will only remember that Federer was the champion.

No you've got to be kidding, rafa is a on and off again player. when he is playing his best very few people can beat him on any surface. When Fed is playing his best and rafa is playing his best you get very close to what occurred in the final. The fifth set rafa's game dropped dramatically.

Did you watch rafa at all during that match or were you to concerned with when is fed actually going to play in this match. People need to realize the one reason Fed can't play his best against rafa is because rafa doesn't allow him to. Fed has even said that on occasion.

Rafa serve was so unbelievably weak that fifth set it was pathetic. People go on and on about how rafa serve can be so weak and still manage to hold up against some of the best returners in the world including Fed, well it's because his serve is about placement not speed and the spin he puts on the ball is unbelievably hard to return. You saw that during the final. Fed broke rafa what 2 times not including the mini breaks during the tiebreaks. His serving got so crappy that last game and the missed shot were completely out of form from the rest of the match.

But i guess you didn't realize that while watching the match.

And your'e still lost is due to the fact that he narrowly escaped rafa during the first tiebreak, the very convincing win in the second tiebreak and a convincing win in the fifth so it begs my question again where was Fed for the rest of the 3 hours( I don't know how long the tiebreaks or that fifth set were, really but he spent more time being trampled by rafa than dominating a win from him.) he was on court

Kim
07-12-2007, 08:15 AM
Why do sane posters like Rhino or myself bother with trolls like sondraj? Because we are crazy too, maybe that's why.

sondraj
07-12-2007, 08:20 AM
Why do sane posters like Rhino or myself bother with trolls like sondraj? Because we are crazy too, maybe that's why.

Did you see the match, do you have any objections to anything in my last post. well if you do be a big girl and post about it instead of going around and responding to a post with your a troll.

Vocabulary is here to help us not hinder us. Use it

lambielspins
07-17-2007, 03:25 PM
The only thing he has yet to do is make a semi or final of a hardcourt slam. Once he does that his record on all surfaces will be beyond any question.

TheModernEra
07-17-2007, 06:17 PM
Does anyone know if Nadal has a close family member named Sondraj? Just curious.

Noveson
07-17-2007, 10:59 PM
Why do sane posters like Rhino or myself bother with trolls like sondraj? Because we are crazy too, maybe that's why.

:rolleyes: Bother with? You posted a one sentence reply. Oh the trouble. It is a dishonor to Rhine to try to group yourself with him.