PDA

View Full Version : Nadal's hard court performance (spoiler!)


Resurge
04-06-2008, 04:17 PM
Okay now that the spring HC season is over, time for a closer look at Nadal’s HC performance in the past year or so, when he’s supposedly made lots of progress. First, it’d be blind to say that he’s not improving – he’s been in the quarter or above in the past five or six HC tournaments, and made two finals. In addition, he posted some impressive results against people who used to be nightmare for him – Blake, Birdman, etc. Things are looking pretty good. But, hang on just a second – let’s look at his recent losses since US open last year:

Madrid: 1:6 2:6 to Nalby
Paris: :4:6 0:6 to Nalby
TMC: 4:6 1:6 to Fed
TMC: 6:4 4:6 3:6 to Fererr
Chennai: 0:6 1:6 to Misha
AO: 2:6 3:6 2:6 to Tsonga
Rotterdam: 6:3 3:6 4:6 to Seppi
Dubai: 6:7 2:6 to Andy
IW: 3:6 2:6 to Djokovic
Miami: 4:6 2:6 to Davy

Quite a number of lopsided scores, if you ask me. But well, doesn’t matter, there’re tons of reasons that any bad things can happen, so let’s not focus only on this. More data would be nice, so let go to H2H (on hardcourt) of the top 8 players:

vs. Fed: 2:3 lifetime; 0:1 since 2007
vs. Djokovic: 2:3 lifetime; 2:3 since 2007
vs. Davy: 1:1 lifetime; 0:1 since 2007
vs. Ferrer: 1:2 lifetime; 0:2 since 2007
vs. Roddick 1:2 lifetime; 1:1 since 2007
vs. Nalbandian 0:2 lifetime 0:2 since 2007
vs. Blake: 2:3 lifetime; 2:0 since 2007

Together: he’s 8:16 lifetime, and 5:10 since 2007. If you look at only Top 5 player (where I think his would be), the number gets even more lopsided.

What does this mean – it means Nadal, on a hard court on a given day, has only 33.3% chance of winning against a top 8 player (himself excluded), and this stats does not improve, as many have expected, in recent months.

In fact, if you look even closer, see Nadal’s recent improvement in hard court results: since last clay season, in all HC tournaments he only played with Top 8 12 times in route the “impressive” results, guess how many times he won? Three! (two over Blake in the past two weeks, one over Djokovic in TMC). If you claim to be a top contender on HC, you need better results than this.

I am not listing all these just to say Nadal sucks – on the contrary, I love this guy. He’s a great player who works very hard and deserves every respect. What bothers me, is that some of the so-called “fans” are just so blind and talk as if he’s already on top of men’s game on HC already. No, he’s not, he’s improving, but so is the field. He had some nice wins over his old rivals, but no doubt new ones are being added to the mix at the same time: Ferrer, Tsonga, even Djokovic, who was not such a problem at all in the past. I expect Murray to come into the show pretty soon too. Nadal is definitely a better player than he was two years ago, but so is everybody.

Don’t cite a slumping Federer as a standard – his current form should not be a standard if Nadal wants to go anywhere beyond being a great clay-courter. “Better than Federer” sounds nice, but we all know what that means at this time of Federer’s career. I know some of you will call me a hater – but hey, even a hater like me thinks Nadal should achieve more than what he’s done now. Blindness don’t help on the way.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
04-06-2008, 04:22 PM
I am watching the match now and Ms. Mary Carillo brought something to my attention:


He has won the most hard court matches in 2008. :shock:



Again, credit Mary for this information. :D

Jonny S&V
04-06-2008, 04:27 PM
Okay now that the spring HC season is over, time for a closer look at Nadal’s HC performance in the past year or so, when he’s supposedly made lots of progress. First, it’d be blind to say that he’s not improving – he’s been in the quarter or above in the past five or six HC tournaments, and made two finals...

Welcome to the board, and great 1st post! Interesting facts, should shut a few Nadal-troll mouths. :)
I am watching the match now and Ms. Mary Carillo brought something to my attention:


He has won the most hard court matches in 2008. :shock:



Again, credit Mary for this information. :D

But he's also played more hard court tourneys compared to the rest of the top 10, if I'm not mistaken.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
04-06-2008, 04:31 PM
But he's also played more hard court tourneys compared to the rest of the top 10, if I'm not mistaken.

I know, but I am trying to make Mary look good at the same time. Come on now, don't take the spotlight away from her.:oops:

Jonny S&V
04-06-2008, 04:36 PM
I know, but I am trying to make Mary look good at the same time. Come on now, don't take the spotlight away fro her.:oops:

Lol, well, she has been getting a lot of bad publicity in the past year... :twisted:

kabob
04-06-2008, 04:43 PM
I love threads like this. Concise, good grammar, and logical conclusions and opinions backed up by FACTS and STATS. I was honestly considering quitting this board altogether as so many of the threads are made by fanboys that seem to post little else but bias-laden TROLL threads bashing their least favorite players and propping up thier favorites.

Thanks, Resurge!

Jonny S&V
04-06-2008, 04:46 PM
I love threads like this. Concise, good grammar, and logical conclusions and opinions backed up by FACTS and STATS. I was honestly considering quitting this board altogether as so many of the threads are made by fanboys that seem to post little else but bias-laden TROLL threads bashing their least favorite players and propping up thier favorites.

Thanks, Resurge!

I know, isn't it refreshing to see a new user who actually has valid topics?

kabob
04-06-2008, 04:49 PM
Indeed, it is :)

Resurge
04-06-2008, 04:52 PM
Thanks guys. Looking forward to have some fun on this forum.

PROTENNIS63
04-06-2008, 05:00 PM
great post. very informative.

You will have lots of fun, especially in this part of the forum. Sometime people write some scary stuff here. :)

Nadal_Freak
04-06-2008, 07:26 PM
Lol, well, she has been getting a lot of bad publicity in the past year... :twisted:
I'm one of the few that thinks she's a good commentator. She and John McEnroe are a great mix.

edberg505
04-06-2008, 07:34 PM
Hmm, pretty darn good post.

Vision84
04-06-2008, 07:35 PM
Refreshing to see someone actually back up their argument with something intelligent. And notice how the responses are more civilized to.

daddy
04-06-2008, 08:44 PM
Well although you used a lot of information and stats, Nadal is the by far the 2nd best player in the ATP race thus far - which is also a fact but this one seems to back up that he had a pretty good start to the 2008 HC season. One more fact is that he never won as many point in this part of the season until now. Last year he had 1025 points before the clay season and this year he has 1245 points. This is a clear improvement although he won IW last year and had no tourney wins this year. For comparison in 2006 he had around 620 points in this perod and in 2005 he played a bunch of clay court tourneys in south america and mexico and yet won around 600 points in total. This is a clear imrovement for Rafa both in terms of being consistant and getting far into the tourneys on HC.

Resurge
04-06-2008, 08:52 PM
Well although you used a lot of information and stats, Nadal is the by far the 2nd best player in the ATP race thus far - which is also a fact but this one seems to back up that he had a pretty good start to the 2008 HC season. One more fact is that he never won as many point in this part of the season until now. Last year he had 1025 points before the clay season and this year he has 1245 points. This is a clear improvement although he won IW last year and had no tourney wins this year. For comparison in 2006 he had around 620 points in this perod and in 2005 he played a bunch of clay court tourneys in south america and mexico and yet won around 600 points in total. This is a clear imrovement for Rafa both in terms of being consistant and getting far into the tourneys on HC.

Again - denying Rafa is progressing is stupid, as I stated in the first sentence. What is not shown in the number of points is who he's played in those tournaments, and who he wants to be compared against. As I said, if Rafa is happy to be "one of the better players on HC",he's already there, and actually did more than that. The point I am trying to make is that if you'd like to be a top contender on this surface, you need better results against the top guys rather than hoping you do not run into them in tournaments. It's a good start for Rafa in 2008 compared with 2007 - but his 2005 was far superior to 2007 too (a few HC titles), so can we say he regressed? Certainly not. Comparisons can be read in many many different ways and I am just offering one way to look at the results that may have be omitted just by points.

daddy
04-06-2008, 08:57 PM
Again - denying Rafa is progressing is stupid, as I stated in the first sentence. What is not shown in the number of points is who he's played in those tournaments, and who he wants to be compared against. As I said, if Rafa is happy to be "one of the better players on HC",he's already there, and actually did more than that. The point I am trying to make is that if you'd like to be a top contender on this surface, you need better results against the top guys rather than hoping you do not run into them in tournaments. It's a good start for Rafa in 2008 compared with 2007 - but his 2005 was far superior to 2007 too (a few HC titles), so can we say he regressed? Certainly not. Comparisons can be read in many many different ways and I am just offering one way to look at the results that may have be omitted just by points.

Honestly not being a fan of the guy, I can only tell you this much. If you expect a clay courter, even as talented as him - to change the game and become a HC predator - you are wrong. It is simply not going to happen anytime soon. He will always be one of the best, never the best. If you want reasons take a look at his strenghts and weaknesses and you will realise that he loves spining groundies and serve and running down balls more than hitting flat serves and strokes and going for them. Also I can safely bet he will not do as good as last couple of times in Wimby, but this is off the record.

Resurge
04-06-2008, 09:02 PM
Honestly not being a fan of the guy, I can only tell you this much. If you expect a clay courter, even as talented as him - to change the game and become a HC predator - you are wrong. It is simply not going to happen anytime soon. He will always be one of the best, never the best. If you want reasons take a look at his strenghts and weaknesses and you will realise that he loves spining groundies and serve and running down balls more than hitting flat serves and strokes and going for them. Also I can safely bet he will not do as good as last couple of times in Wimby, but this is off the record.

I am totally with you. In my original post, I acknowledge that Rafa is progressing on this game but the reason I brought up the whole thing is that some posters are so biased in their reading of the game and just walk around posting as if Rafa can easily beat anyone on HC (which I think he certainly can but reading those posts makes you believe no one is even close to his level). I like this guy, but I also know this strengths and limitations. Maybe because I am still new and still get annoyed by those...:)

daddy
04-06-2008, 09:06 PM
I am totally with you. In my original post, I acknowledge that Rafa is progressing on this game but the reason I brought up the whole thing is that some posters are so biased in their reading of the game and just walk around posting as if Rafa can easily beat anyone on HC (which I think he certainly can but reading those posts makes you believe no one is even close to his level). I like this guy, but I also know this strengths and limitations. Maybe because I am still new and still get annoyed by those...:)


No problems, I am no fan but I like him also. I do stand by my statement that I think safest big surprise to predict (if it can be called so) is Nadal going out in the first week of Wimby. Might not happen but this is more likely than Fed not getting to RG final and that is highly likely as things stand right now. This is just me trying to be smart on time, so I can pull this quote in several months time .. ;)

Resurge
04-06-2008, 09:16 PM
No problems, I am no fan but I like him also. I do stand by my statement that I think safest big surprise to predict (if it can be called so) is Nadal going out in the first week of Wimby. Might not happen but this is more likely than Fed not getting to RG final and that is highly likely as things stand right now. This is just me trying to be smart on time, so I can pull this quote in several months time .. ;)

I think that'll depend on how the clay season goes, both for Federer and for Nadal. If Nadal has a great season as he's had in the past two years, or Federer has a very poor one, he's likely be very pumped up and he can go deep in the tournament. If however he suffers some unexpected defeats on clay, things will be interesting in SW19 for him. No doubt he's a confidence player, and I may get flamed for saying this: Nadal is not particularly confident at this moment of his career, given the pressure from Djokovic & Company, and the expectation people put on him. I actually think both Federer (for sure) and himself need a break from these pressure, but maybe just me.

crawl4
04-06-2008, 10:54 PM
I think that'll depend on how the clay season goes, both for Federer and for Nadal. If Nadal has a great season as he's had in the past two years, or Federer has a very poor one, he's likely be very pumped up and he can go deep in the tournament. If however he suffers some unexpected defeats on clay, things will be interesting in SW19 for him. No doubt he's a confidence player, and I may get flamed for saying this: Nadal is not particularly confident at this moment of his career, given the pressure from Djokovic & Company, and the expectation people put on him. I actually think both Federer (for sure) and himself need a break from these pressure, but maybe just me.

yeh i agree with you but i think federer is in a better position then nadal right now. Aside from his form Federer isnt expected to do as well a he has done at Roland Garros with his mixed results and as the first post mentioned nadal is being praised on HC! This would lead to expectations for his favorite surface and although he is likely to win, he is under a lot of pressure. In case i sound biased i may be as i dont like watching nadal's style of play, its to grinding and defensive but man i wish i could play like that.

caulcano
04-07-2008, 04:03 AM
No problems, I am no fan but I like him also. I do stand by my statement that I think safest big surprise to predict (if it can be called so) is Nadal going out in the first week of Wimby. Might not happen but this is more likely than Fed not getting to RG final and that is highly likely as things stand right now. This is just me trying to be smart on time, so I can pull this quote in several months time .. ;)

I can't see Nadal losing in the first week at Wimbledon. It's his second home after RG.

Also, I don't think we'll see a repeat of the Wimbledon & French final. One or both will lose before the final of each.

Nadal_Monfils
04-07-2008, 06:14 AM
True, Nadal has not fared very well vs the top 8 on hardcourts lately, but there are still very good hardcourt players that are not in the top 8 that he has had some success against such as Murray and Berdych. The top 8 are not the only good players in the world, players outside of the top 8 can pose a problem as well, as some of them are younger guys on the rise, like Tsonga.

jmverdugo
04-07-2008, 07:10 AM
I just think that, for some reason, his stamina (mental and phisical), doesnt last until the end of the tournament, it has happend that he makes good initial rounds and out of nowhere he just cant do anything else. Im hoping that this is just a HC phenomen (since is all he has played this year) but truth is that it comes from last year.

Resurge
04-07-2008, 07:19 AM
True, Nadal has not fared very well vs the top 8 on hardcourts lately, but there are still very good hardcourt players that are not in the top 8 that he has had some success against such as Murray and Berdych. The top 8 are not the only good players in the world, players outside of the top 8 can pose a problem as well, as some of them are younger guys on the rise, like Tsonga.

Completed agreed - the field is deep and there're many dangerous players around. I think to some extent this should be take into consideration when bringing up the "weak era" topic, which personally I think is not fair.

Naysayer
04-07-2008, 08:30 AM
I like this thread! Enough so that I actually registered just to post. To play devil's advocate (or to be a "naysayer"), I'll say that the stats cited may or may not prove what was claimed (i.e., that Nadal hasn't really improved on hard courts). First, it doesn't really appear to be the case that Nadal is playing more tournaments than most of the top 10- only two players (Fed is one, I forgot the other) have played fewer than 6 tournaments, the remainder have played 6. If we corrected for the number of potential matches that a player could have played, given the tournaments entered, I think Nadal would still come out on top for the season thus far. Second, with regard to the first post, shouldn't we have these types of statistics for the other top 10ers? Perhaps Nadal's percentage is actually typical (i.e., top 10 lose to other top 10 a lot).

Resurge
04-07-2008, 08:57 AM
I like this thread! Enough so that I actually registered just to post. To play devil's advocate (or to be a "naysayer"), I'll say that the stats cited may or may not prove what was claimed (i.e., that Nadal hasn't really improved on hard courts). First, it doesn't really appear to be the case that Nadal is playing more tournaments than most of the top 10- only two players (Fed is one, I forgot the other) have played fewer than 6 tournaments, the remainder have played 6. If we corrected for the number of potential matches that a player could have played, given the tournaments entered, I think Nadal would still come out on top for the season thus far. Second, with regard to the first post, shouldn't we have these types of statistics for the other top 10ers? Perhaps Nadal's percentage is actually typical (i.e., top 10 lose to other top 10 a lot).

Hey there! Thanks for being so thoughtful - I like this discussion too. Two thoughts on this: I do not think Nadal played more than a typical Top 10 during the same period and his points does say something about his performance. However, as I mentioned earlier - what the points do not tell you, I believe, is who he played in those tournaments. Again, if the expectation is just to be in the mix with average performance (among top players), I believe he's already there; but, to substantiate the arguments from some "fans" that he's on top of the game and can handily beat the top guys, we need more & better performance as the current stats do not support these arguments. 1 in 3 chance really isn't that convincing for this argument. Second, I dont have the exact stats, but I believe his winning percentage against the top players is about or even slightly below average among the top 8 players. I believe at least Federer, Djokovic, Roddick did better, which essentially puts him at average at best. Again, I am not saying Nadal sucks - it's just the discrepancy between what happened and what some people seem to believed has happened that's catching my attention. :)

Benhur
04-07-2008, 10:11 AM
Okay now that the spring HC season is over, time for a closer look at Nadal’s HC performance in the past year or so, when he’s supposedly made lots of progress. First, it’d be blind to say that he’s not improving – he’s been in the quarter or above in the past five or six HC tournaments, and made two finals. In addition, he posted some impressive results against people who used to be nightmare for him – Blake, Birdman, etc. Things are looking pretty good. But, hang on just a second – let’s look at his recent losses since US open last year:

Madrid: 1:6 2:6 to Nalby
Paris: :4:6 0:6 to Nalby
TMC: 4:6 1:6 to Fed
TMC: 6:4 4:6 3:6 to Fererr
Chennai: 0:6 1:6 to Misha
AO: 2:6 3:6 2:6 to Tsonga
Rotterdam: 6:3 3:6 4:6 to Seppi
Dubai: 6:7 2:6 to Andy
IW: 3:6 2:6 to Djokovic
Miami: 4:6 2:6 to Davy

Quite a number of lopsided scores, if you ask me. But well, doesn’t matter, there’re tons of reasons that any bad things can happen, so let’s not focus only on this. More data would be nice, so let go to H2H (on hardcourt) of the top 8 players:

vs. Fed: 2:3 lifetime; 0:1 since 2007
vs. Djokovic: 2:3 lifetime; 2:3 since 2007
vs. Davy: 1:1 lifetime; 0:1 since 2007
vs. Ferrer: 1:2 lifetime; 0:2 since 2007
vs. Roddick 1:2 lifetime; 1:1 since 2007
vs. Nalbandian 0:2 lifetime 0:2 since 2007
vs. Blake: 2:3 lifetime; 2:0 since 2007

Together: he’s 8:16 lifetime, and 5:10 since 2007. If you look at only Top 5 player (where I think his would be), the number gets even more lopsided.


Making and showcasing a list of *losses* is not the most outstandig example of an unbiased perspective, especially if you don't show the list of losses of the players with whom you are comparing him.

Yours is a rather quaint perspective, if you put it together with, winning percentages per surface. Your selection of statistics seem to show that he is one of the worst top 8 players on hardcourts.

But certain facts inconvenience this assessment. Namely, hardcourt ranking points, and hardcourt winning percentages. For example, among the current top 10, Nadal has the 4th best *lifetime* winning percentage on hardcourts.

Lifetime HARDCOURT winning percentages:

Federer 82%
Roddick 77%
Djokovic 73%
Nadal 72%
Blake 67%
Nalbandian 64%
Davydenko 59%
Gasquet 59%
Berdych 58%
Ferrer 57%

The above of course includes Nadal's matches in 2003-2004 when he was 15 and 16 years old. If you look at the hardcourt winning percentages starting in 2005 (or any period thereafter) he is in 3rd position.

That shows a rather different picture.

And that picture is also consistent with his hardcourt point rankings for all those years.

What your posts shows, in view of the above, is that his losses are much more consistently concentrated on the very top players, so that -- except for Federer -- he loses *less* frequently to players outside the top, than those other players with whom you compare him. So your perspective makes sense only if you implicitly assume that losses to a top-8 are *more* detrimental to a player's record than losses to lower ranked players.

But to most people, including from an ELO perspective, the exact opposite is the case.

So, in the end, the distribution of Nadal's losses by quality of opponent, *in comparison* with those other players (a comparison you did not make because it would be too blatantly inconvenient) acts to strengthen, not weaken the accuracy of his hard-court ranking position, which is 3 and has been 3 for quite a while.

TheTruth
04-07-2008, 10:22 AM
I like this thread! Enough so that I actually registered just to post. To play devil's advocate (or to be a "naysayer"), I'll say that the stats cited may or may not prove what was claimed (i.e., that Nadal hasn't really improved on hard courts). First, it doesn't really appear to be the case that Nadal is playing more tournaments than most of the top 10- only two players (Fed is one, I forgot the other) have played fewer than 6 tournaments, the remainder have played 6. If we corrected for the number of potential matches that a player could have played, given the tournaments entered, I think Nadal would still come out on top for the season thus far. Second, with regard to the first post, shouldn't we have these types of statistics for the other top 10ers? Perhaps Nadal's percentage is actually typical (i.e., top 10 lose to other top 10 a lot).

Excellent post!

TheTruth
04-07-2008, 10:24 AM
Making and showcasing a list of *losses* is not the most outstandig example of an unbiased perspective, especially if you don't show the list of losses of the players with whom you are comparing him.

Yours is a rather quaint perspective, if you put it together with, winning percentages per surface. Your selection of statistics seem to show that he is one of the worst top 8 players on hardcourts.

But certain facts inconvenience this assessment. Namely, hardcourt ranking points, and hardcourt winning percentages. For example, among the current top 10, Nadal has the 4th best *lifetime* winning percentage on hardcourts.

Lifetime HARDCOURT winning percentages:

Federer 82%
Roddick 77%
Djokovic 73%
Nadal 72%
Blake 67%
Nalbandian 64%
Davydenko 59%
Gasquet 59%
Berdych 58%
Ferrer 57%

The above of course includes Nadal's matches in 2003-2004 when he was 15 and 16 years old. If you look at the hardcourt winning percentages starting in 2005 (or any period thereafter) he is in 3rd position.

That shows a rather different picture.

And that picture is also consistent with his hardcourt point rankings for all those years.

What your posts shows, in view of the above, is that his losses are much more consistently concentrated on the very top players, so that -- except for Federer -- he loses *less* frequently to players outside the top, than those other players with whom you compare him. So your perspective makes sense only if you implicitly assume that losses to a top-8 are *more* detrimental to a player's record than losses to lower ranked players.

But to most people, including from an ELO perspective, the exact opposite is the case.

So, in the end, the distribution of Nadal's losses by quality of opponent, *in comparison* with those other players (a comparison you did not make because it would be too blatantly inconvenient) acts to strengthen, not weaken the accuracy of his hard-court ranking position, which is 3 and has been 3 for quite a while.

Absolutely!

Resurge
04-07-2008, 10:24 AM
Making and showcasing a list of *losses* is not the most outstandig example of an unbiased perspective, especially if you don't show the list of losses of the players with whom you are comparing him.

Yours is a rather quaint perspective, if you put it together with, winning percentages per surface. Your selection of statistics seem to show that he is one of the worst top 8 players on hardcourts.

But certain facts inconvenience this assessment. Namely, hardcourt ranking points, and hardcourt winning percentages. For example, among the current top 10, Nadal has the 4th best *lifetime* winning percentage on hardcourts.

Lifetime HARDCOURT winning percentages:

Federer 82%
Roddick 77%
Djokovic 73%
Nadal 72%
Blake 67%
Nalbandian 64%
Davydenko 59%
Gasquet 59%
Berdych 58%
Ferrer 57%

The above of course includes Nadal's matches in 2003-2004 when he was 15 and 16 years old. If you look at the hardcourt winning percentages starting in 2005 (or any period thereafter) he is in 3rd position.

That shows a rather different picture.

And that picture is also consistent with his hardcourt point rankings for all those years.

What your posts shows, in view of the above, is that his losses are much more consistently concentrated on the very top players, so that -- except for Federer -- he loses *less* frequently to players outside the top, than those other players with whom you compare him. So your perspective makes sense only if you implicitly assume that losses to a top-8 are *more* detrimental to a player's record than losses to lower ranked players.

But to most people, including from an ELO perspective, the exact opposite is the case.

So, in the end, the distribution of Nadal's losses by quality of opponent, *in comparison* with those other players (a comparison you did not make because it would be too blatantly inconvenient) acts to strengthen, not weaken the accuracy of his hard-court ranking position, which is 3 and has been 3 for quite a while.

Thank you for the excellent point. As I mentioned - losing to a top guy is much much better than losing to a 200th ranked person, and there's really no denying Nadal is one of the toughest guys even on HC. But - the whole reason for the argument is to refute the notion that he's on top of the game on HC already - as some have claimed. In order to substantiate this argument you need a better result against the top guys. Beating the likes of Mahut (no offense) should really be irrelevant in this discussion. What points and winning percentage do not tell you is who they played in the process, and the reason a slam is more difficult than others is not only it requires a five-setter, it's because more rounds means you are more likely to run into a top player.

On the other hand, I agree with you that to be consistent in the game, and not losing to a lower ranked player is an important aspect of being on top. I think that's what hurts players like Davydenko a lot. In the end, I agree Nadal is a great player on HC (as I always did) but there just isn't much evidence to support the claims that he's on top of the games already.

TheTruth
04-07-2008, 10:25 AM
We can all agree that Nadal came on tour as a "clay courter." What he's done since on grass and hardcourt is phenomenal. There are no two ways about it.

Resurge
04-07-2008, 10:32 AM
We can all agree that Nadal came on tour as a "clay courter." What he's done since on grass and hardcourt is phenomenal. There are no two ways about it.

Sensible assessment. For a clay courter Nadal's done phenomenonally well on HC. He needs a different game to be get better on HC I doubt he will (If i were him I would not). It's unlikely that he'll be the favorite on a HC when the other top guys are around, but in my view that's completely okay, if you understand he's strengths and weaknesses.

TheTruth
04-07-2008, 10:33 AM
Thank you for the excellent point. As I mentioned - losing to a top guy is much much better than losing to a 200th ranked person, and there's really no denying Nadal is one of the toughest guys even on HC. But - the whole reason for the argument is to refute the notion that he's on top of the game on HC already - as some have claimed. In order to substantiate this argument you need a better result against the top guys. Beating the likes of Mahut (no offense) should really be irrelevant in this discussion. What points and winning percentage do not tell you is who they played in the process, and the reason a slam is more difficult than others is not only it requires a five-setter, it's because more rounds means you are more likely to run into a top player.

On the other hand, I agree with you that to be consistent in the game, and not losing to a lower ranked player is an important aspect of being on top. I think that's what hurts players like Davydenko a lot. In the end, I agree Nadal is a great player on HC (as I always did) but there just isn't much evidence to support the claims that he's on top of the games already.

Now the post is getting tricky. If you take into account only who you lose to, that doesn't make sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make it better to lose to lower ranked opponents? During the course of a tournament Nadal frequently plays tougher opponents to get to the final, this would also affect his hc winning percentage and performance. The reasonings sound faulty to me. Improvement or no? High percentage, or no? I don't get the point you're trying to make!

TheTruth
04-07-2008, 10:38 AM
Sensible assessment. For a clay courter Nadal's done phenomenonally well on HC. He needs a different game to be get better on HC I doubt he will (If i were him I would not). It's unlikely that he'll be the favorite on a HC when the other top guys are around, but in my view that's completely okay, if you understand he's strengths and weaknesses.

Why do you call him a clay courter, when his winning percentages on all surfaces are good? To me, he's learning on all of the different surfaces and even in the learning curve is making significant progress and is head and shoulders above many so-called hardcourters? I don't know, sounds fishy to me!

Resurge
04-07-2008, 10:41 AM
Now the post is getting tricky. If you take into account only who you lose to, that doesn't make sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make it better to lose to lower ranked opponents? During the course of a tournament Nadal frequently plays tougher opponents to get to the final, this would also affect his hc winning percentage and performance. The reasonings sound faulty to me. Improvement or no? High percentage, or no? I don't get the point you're trying to make!

I am not sure about this...losing to a lower ranked player is always worse than losing to a top guy, and winning percentage overall and percentage against top players do not always go together. I think the point is: to prove a tougher point (Nadal is on top of men's game on HC), you need a tougher standard than just winning percentage overall, and IMO the test of winning percentage against the top guys is a must. Of course in many cases you can win a tournament without playing a top guy (which happens a lot to everybody), but I believe this should be coupled with other stats in interpretation.

As to improvement - as I've always said, Nadal has improved compared with the old himself. But that is much less relevant compared with the "relative" improvement, because while you improve, others do too. Whoever does it the most efficiently wins - at least it seems me to be Djokovic.

Resurge
04-07-2008, 10:44 AM
Why do you call him a clay courter, when his winning percentages on all surfaces are good? To me, he's learning on all of the different surfaces and even in the learning curve is making significant progress and is head and shoulders above many so-called hardcourters? I don't know, sounds fishy to me!

Sounds to me you think clay courter is a bad name....mmmmmm we have a problem here then. In my dictionary, if you win 80% of your titles on clay court, you're a clay courter, but it may just be me....

You sound like I don't like Nadal - I actually do and think he should be the one who takes over the No.1 when Federer fades. What I dont like is getting ahead of the facts - or facts in my mind.

TheTruth
04-07-2008, 10:55 AM
I am not sure about this...losing to a lower ranked player is always worse than losing to a top guy, and winning percentage overall and percentage against top players do not always go together. I think the point is: to prove a tougher point (Nadal is on top of men's game on HC), you need a tougher standard than just winning percentage overall, and IMO the test of winning percentage against the top guys is a must. Of course in many cases you can win a tournament without playing a top guy (which happens a lot to everybody), but I believe this should be coupled with other stats in interpretation.

As to improvement - as I've always said, Nadal has improved compared with the old himself. But that is much less relevant compared with the "relative" improvement, because while you improve, others do too. Whoever does it the most efficiently wins - at least it seems me to be Djokovic.

The statements being made about Nadal's hardcourt prowess, so to speak, deal specifically with 2008. Two years ago he wasn't considered a threat, nor in the conversation when it came to hard courts, or grass. But, he's proved us wrong each time. For 2008, the year in question he does have the hard court highest percentage having not lost before the quarters in any event. I don't think anyone else can boast that, not even Djokovic. He's also won more matches on hard court this year than anyone else. Will the trend continue? We don't know. But at this point, all we can go by is percentages. I liked your graph, but am leery of the data seeing as how you didn't do one for the other top tenners? The way it was done was really difficult to get a fair assessment because we all know that data can be manipulated.

Resurge
04-07-2008, 11:03 AM
The statements being made about Nadal's hardcourt prowess, so to speak, deal specifically with 2008. Two years ago he wasn't considered a threat, nor in the conversation when it came to hard courts, or grass. But, he's proved us wrong each time. For 2008, the year in question he does have the hard court highest percentage having not lost before the quarters in any event. I don't think anyone else can boast that, not even Djokovic. He's also won more matches on hard court this year than anyone else. Will the trend continue? We don't know. But at this point, all we can go by is percentages. I liked your graph, but am leery of the data seeing as how you didn't do one for the other top tenners? The way it was done was really difficult to get a fair assessment because we all know that data can be manipulated.

Thanks...a couple of thoughts on this: first of all, results of 2008. Traditionally Nadal has been doing reasonably well in the early spring HC season, and I believe the point difference between this year and last (about 200) is within the margin of error, given the relatively small sample size (imagine he ran into Tsonga in 4th round at AO rather than semi?). I wouldn't personally read too much into results from a relatively short period of time. Second, what data says. I think you're right that I am taunting stats that are not entirely favorable to Nadal, but as I mentioned many times, to meet a tougher standard and to substantiate a tougher claim, you go through a tougher examination. Remember how Federer was only compared to Nadal when talking about this clay performance? I think that's the price you pay to be on top. Maybe just out of sheer frustration that some posters are getting way out of the facts or maybe I haven't gotten the immune system to that...:)

TheTruth
04-07-2008, 11:12 AM
Sounds to me you think clay courter is a bad name....mmmmmm we have a problem here then. In my dictionary, if you win 80% of your titles on clay court, you're a clay courter, but it may just be me....

You sound like I don't like Nadal - I actually do and think he should be the one who takes over the No.1 when Federer fades. What I dont like is getting ahead of the facts - or facts in my mind.

To me, clay courters typically don't do well on other surfaces, and when hard court and grass season come around many of them don't even show up. To call him a clay courter regardless of his accomplishments on other surfaces appears to be erroneous.

edmondsm
04-07-2008, 11:18 AM
For 2008, the year in question he does have the hard court highest percentage having not lost before the quarters in any event.

He lost in the 2nd round in Rotterdam.

TheTruth
04-07-2008, 11:20 AM
He lost in the 2nd round in Rotterdam.

Thanks, I forgot about that. Hard time remembering matches not on TV, or that I don't watch on the computer!

Resurge
04-07-2008, 11:20 AM
To me, clay courters typically don't do well on other surfaces, and when hard court and grass season come around many of them don't even show up. To call him a clay courter regardless of his accomplishments on other surfaces appears to be erroneous.

mmmmmm...that gives a bad name to clay courters. By this definition I dont know who the greatest clay courter is: certainly not Nadal, Borg is out too...not Rosewall either...we really have to go down the list a lot to find someone who excels exclusively on clay, even Guga wins HC masters and year end championships...for the record, I really dont see clay courter as inferior to any other type of players...:)

TheTruth
04-07-2008, 11:25 AM
Thanks...a couple of thoughts on this: first of all, results of 2008. Traditionally Nadal has been doing reasonably well in the early spring HC season, and I believe the point difference between this year and last (about 200) is within the margin of error, given the relatively small sample size (imagine he ran into Tsonga in 4th round at AO rather than semi?). I wouldn't personally read too much into results from a relatively short period of time. Second, what data says. I think you're right that I am taunting stats that are not entirely favorable to Nadal, but as I mentioned many times, to meet a tougher standard and to substantiate a tougher claim, you go through a tougher examination. Remember how Federer was only compared to Nadal when talking about this clay performance? I think that's the price you pay to be on top. Maybe just out of sheer frustration that some posters are getting way out of the facts or maybe I haven't gotten the immune system to that...:)

But I thought we were talking about the 2008 results. What was skewed was only posting Nadal's losses vs. the rest of the top ten's losses. That was bizarre to me. As far as losses, you could concievably count Federer's losses as Volandri, Nalbandian twice, Murray twice, Djoker twice, Gonzo and now Fish, but what would be the point? Would it mean Federer was no longer a hard court threat? Absolutely not! I was curious as to why you didn't post the others results, because without that the argument falls flat. I think you are tainting the results...I guess that's my point!

TheTruth
04-07-2008, 11:29 AM
mmmmmm...that gives a bad name to clay courters. By this definition I dont know who the greatest clay courter is: certainly not Nadal, Borg is out too...not Rosewall either...we really have to go down the list a lot to find someone who excels exclusively on clay, even Guga wins HC masters and year end championships...for the record, I really dont see clay courter as inferior to any other type of players...:)

I don't agree with the whole comparing people argument in the first place. All the factors are not equal. The technology, the schedules, the players, even the tournaments are configured differently. But in today's time, which is where I'm at, clay courter denotes someone who excels on clay primarily, not one who has a well-rounded resume!

Resurge
04-07-2008, 11:31 AM
But I thought we were talking about the 2008 results. What was skewed was only posting Nadal's losses vs. the rest of the top ten's losses. That was bizarre to me. As far as losses, you could concievably count Federer's losses as Volandri, Nalbandian twice, Murray twice, Djoker twice, Gonzo and now Fish, but what would be the point? Would it mean Federer was no longer a hard court threat? Absolutely not! I was curious as to why you didn't post the others results, because without that the argument falls flat. I think you are tainting the results...I guess that's my point!

Aha - now I get you. First of all, if anyone comes out and say Federer is now on top of men's game, I'd be one of the first to say that's stupid. But is he not a threat? He certainly is. Same goes for Nadal - if he's claimed to be a threat on HC, no argument whatsoever. But to say he's on top of the game - that's a huge leap forward, IMO.

I also stated many times a loss is a loss, and really doesn't mean much. What matters is results over a relatively long period of time (15 months IMO would be enough). If I simply make my point based on the losses and score, that's flimsy, but it seems my point in the entire post somehow got lost in your reading...on a more serious note, i always think a fan should be open to all things - praises and criticism, and being defensive rarely does any good. Again, maybe just me. :)

Resurge
04-07-2008, 11:33 AM
I don't agree with the whole comparing people argument in the first place. All the factors are not equal. The technology, the schedules, the players, even the tournaments are configured differently. But in today's time, which is where I'm at, clay courter denotes someone who excels on clay primarily, not one who has a well-rounded resume!

Respectfully disagree but hey at least you've made your point. Appreciated.

TheTruth
04-07-2008, 11:39 AM
Aha - now I get you. First of all, if anyone comes out and say Federer is now on top of men's game, I'd be one of the first to say that's stupid. But is he not a threat? He certainly is. Same goes for Nadal - if he's claimed to be a threat on HC, no argument whatsoever. But to say he's on top of the game - that's a huge leap forward, IMO.

I also stated many times a loss is a loss, and really doesn't mean much. What matters is results over a relatively long period of time (15 months IMO would be enough). If I simply make my point based on the losses and score, that's flimsy, but it seems my point in the entire post somehow got lost in your reading...on a more serious note, i always think a fan should be open to all things - praises and criticism, and being defensive rarely does any good. Again, maybe just me. :)

You're right, but in making that type of analysis where you only post Nadal's losses negates your point in the first place. And if you took the 15 months and did everyone's win and losses that would make it more equitable. I try to be open to different people's opinions and don't get offended as you suggest. I simply saw holes in your reasoning and thought I'd respond!

TheTruth
04-07-2008, 11:40 AM
Respectfully disagree but hey at least you've made your point. Appreciated.

I appreciate your explanations as well. Wasn't sure how you got to it, and needed further clarification!

Resurge
04-07-2008, 11:40 AM
But I thought we were talking about the 2008 results. What was skewed was only posting Nadal's losses vs. the rest of the top ten's losses. That was bizarre to me. As far as losses, you could concievably count Federer's losses as Volandri, Nalbandian twice, Murray twice, Djoker twice, Gonzo and now Fish, but what would be the point? Would it mean Federer was no longer a hard court threat? Absolutely not! I was curious as to why you didn't post the others results, because without that the argument falls flat. I think you are tainting the results...I guess that's my point!

And BTW, I believe this is somewhat irrelevant in the same sense as Nadal losing to Seppi, or Djokovic losing to Kevin Anderson really doesn't make Federer's loss to Fish more justifiable. The only thing that they say in common is that the field is deep, and in ten years time no one will remember at the same time Federer lost 2 & 3 to Fish, Djokovic also lost to a qualifier. These justification, IMO, is only relevant in such arguments and doesn't count much when reviewing your whole career.

TheTruth
04-07-2008, 11:43 AM
And BTW, I believe this is somewhat irrelevant in the same sense as Nadal losing to Seppi, or Djokovic losing to Kevin Anderson really doesn't make Federer's loss to Fish more justifiable. The only thing that they say in common is that the field is deep, and in ten years time no one will remember at the same time Federer lost 2 & 3 to Fish, Djokovic also lost to a qualifier. These justification, IMO, is only relevant in such arguments and doesn't count much when reviewing your whole career.

OK, respectfully disagree. Losses here and there don't mean anything, but isn't that what this post was about? Posting Nadal's losses? You keep losing me. I'm out!

Resurge
04-07-2008, 11:47 AM
OK, respectfully disagree. Losses here and there don't mean anything, but isn't that what this post was about? Posting Nadal's losses? You keep losing me. I'm out!

I think the selective attention & interpretation to the points is the issue...but thanks for the comments...:)

deme08
04-08-2008, 01:07 AM
I think the selective attention & interpretation to the points is the issue...but thanks for the comments...:)

Completely agreed. Same "issue" applys for many other Nadal fan boys when it comes to Nadal related topics.


Thanks for your time for putting together the stats, it does reveal some hard truth about Nadal current performance on HC. Regardless of his overall career winning percentage on HC, it does not (as you have already pointed out) tell the fact that his most wins were against lower ranked (outside top 8 ) players. So he is very solid on that department beating lower ranked guys but it is by beating the top 8 guys on a consistent basis (thus winning HC tournaments) that would make him the great HC player that many Nadal fan boys claiming him to be. Which clearly he is not.

daddy
04-08-2008, 05:13 PM
I can't see Nadal losing in the first week at Wimbledon. It's his second home after RG.

Also, I don't think we'll see a repeat of the Wimbledon & French final. One or both will lose before the final of each.

This was a long shot pick but if you ask me what would I pick as a biggest surprise, Id say this is the most likely one to happen. I would not consider this years Federer goin out in R16 in RG being such a surprise.

daddy
04-08-2008, 05:25 PM
OK, respectfully disagree. Losses here and there don't mean anything, but isn't that what this post was about? Posting Nadal's losses? You keep losing me. I'm out!

Id like to fill in with a short one. I feel like he wanted to say that Nadal does not have excelent record against top players on HC ( unlike Federer ) which is a proof he is not the top player on HC in the world, not that he is not one of the top players. You both seem to have lost it during the argument but this is more or less the point - many claiming his improved performances on hc make him the best player on the surface which is not true. He had same or similar results from '05 till now and he shows slight improvement. If you want a good record on HC - look at Fed's/ that is the best Hc players record.

Nadal_Freak
04-08-2008, 05:28 PM
Id like to fill in with a short one. I feel like he wanted to say that Nadal does not have excelent record against top players on HC ( unlike Federer ) which is a proof he is not the top player on HC in the world, not that he is not one of the top players. You both seem to have lost it during the argument but this is more or less the point - many claiming his improved performances on hc make him the best player on the surface which is not true. He had same or similar results from '05 till now and he shows slight improvement. If you want a good record on HC - look at Fed's/ that is the best Hc players record.
Not this year. That belongs to Djokovic. Nadal has actually had a better record than Federer on hardcourts.

daddy
04-08-2008, 05:33 PM
Not this year. That belongs to Djokovic. Nadal has actually had a better record than Federer on hardcourts.

Well if you want to go into that so much, Djokovic has the best results overall, Nadal was by far the most consistant but thats just not enough for the ATP race points, so Djokovic leads. Davydenko not far behind although his showing at AO was not that good. As for Federer he has the best record by far vs everybody ( incl top 10 ) on HC, that was the part I was talking about. Actually his career winning percentage is scary high, go to the atp site and check out him Nadal and Djokovic and you'll see. ;)

TheTruth
04-08-2008, 06:06 PM
Id like to fill in with a short one. I feel like he wanted to say that Nadal does not have excelent record against top players on HC ( unlike Federer ) which is a proof he is not the top player on HC in the world, not that he is not one of the top players. You both seem to have lost it during the argument but this is more or less the point - many claiming his improved performances on hc make him the best player on the surface which is not true. He had same or similar results from '05 till now and he shows slight improvement. If you want a good record on HC - look at Fed's/ that is the best Hc players record.

I see where you're coming from, but here's the thing.

1. I think Nadal has improved on hardcourts, not that he is the best hardcourt player. In no post have I ever intimated any such thing. But in order to prove a point, you can't prove it by manipulating data to your advantage, which to me is what happened.

2. What I wanted to know from him was, ok, you post this to say what? but I wasn't clear on what he was actually saying. I think you summed it up in a way that made it easier to understand for me.

3. I also didn't see anyone saying Nadal was the best hardcourt player now, on the forum either.

4. I am a fan, not a fanatic. Nadal is my favorite, but I'm not opposed to him taking his lumps like anyone else. I also don't take it personal. To get my blood pressure rising over something I can't control would be futile.

Thanks for clearing this up. I did not get that from the poster, but according to what you say, I am in total agreement. It's well-documented that Federer has been the better hard court player for the last few years. That was never in question!

TheTruth
04-08-2008, 06:18 PM
Id like to fill in with a short one. I feel like he wanted to say that Nadal does not have excelent record against top players on HC ( unlike Federer ) which is a proof he is not the top player on HC in the world, not that he is not one of the top players. You both seem to have lost it during the argument but this is more or less the point - many claiming his improved performances on hc make him the best player on the surface which is not true. He had same or similar results from '05 till now and he shows slight improvement. If you want a good record on HC - look at Fed's/ that is the best Hc players record.

I guess the other thing is, if you only posted a player's losses to make your point, how could you do that without using a comparison model? How can you make a point saying Rafa blah, blah, blah, without posting Djokovic, Roddick, Federer, time frame, and other factors? Data must be able to be compared. Just pulling out one stat and wrapping your argument around that creates an unfair and biased spin. The issue was always about 2008. Going back to 2005 served no purpose, but even in that Rafa still has great stats. The issue was Nadal's improvement in early 2008, not who was the best hardcourter over an extended period of time.

Resurge
04-08-2008, 10:07 PM
I guess the other thing is, if you only posted a player's losses to make your point, how could you do that without using a comparison model? How can you make a point saying Rafa blah, blah, blah, without posting Djokovic, Roddick, Federer, time frame, and other factors? Data must be able to be compared. Just pulling out one stat and wrapping your argument around that creates an unfair and biased spin. The issue was always about 2008. Going back to 2005 served no purpose, but even in that Rafa still has great stats. The issue was Nadal's improvement in early 2008, not who was the best hardcourter over an extended period of time.

Wow you're combative...:). I guess it's my fault that I did not present the full data so that you dont trust the analysis. Okay here it is - comparison of win/loss of the top players against fellow top players in the time frame we're discussing - but first, a few assumptions: we're talking about a relatively long period of time, that is, since 2007; this time frame can be changed at any point (say, we only talk about this year, or past three weeks etc), but for every argument there'll be an assumption and this is mine. Whether it is justified, readers should have their opinions. The other difficulty of doing this analysis is that the top 8 players are different for any given week, so for the clarity of analysis we only look at the current top 8, with the exception of TMC, when it was clear who were the top 8 then. Others, such as Gonzo, who were in and out, were thus omitted from this analysis. Again - it's arbitrary, but readers should have their view whether this is okay or not :)

Federer: lost 5 out of 18 encounters against Top 8
Nadal: lost 9 out 15
Djokovic: lost 8 out 17
Davydenko: lost 4 out 9
Roddick: lost 8 out 15
....

This is not a complete list but just by listing the few it should be sufficient to support the point. Nadal, during this period of time, is clearly "one of the threats" but by no means "at the top of the game" on HC.

If we only talk about this year's performance, one impressive figure is Djokovic, who is 1 out 4 (Nadal at the same time lost 3 out 5, with two wins over Blake).

I agree with you there are many different ways to look at one's performance, tournaments results and points amassed are both excellent ways. I am just providing an alternative perspective that hopes to bring out something that is missing in those data, which is performance against top guys. This doesn't tell the whole story, but IMO, certainly tells part of the story.

Resurge
04-08-2008, 10:11 PM
And BTW, if I wasn't clear in my previous posts, I did this solely to make a point to refute the posts that Nadal is easily on top of mens game on HC, and has absolutely no intention to say he sucks - his consistent ranking already says this, loud and clear.

For the record, I do like Nadal. I dont like Nadal the way you do doesn't mean I dont like this guy, so there really is no reason to be so combative and defensive. Calling people manipulating data is quite a serious thing, if I may.

daddy
04-09-2008, 12:48 PM
Hahaha - I get your point. Anything that's not helping Nadal is manipulating data. This analysis could have been done with top4, top 6, or 10, or 16, and you may get a different answer for each of them. But as I mentioned in my post, the cut off is arbitrary and only the readers should decided whether it's okay or not. Anyway, you've made your point :)

By all means disregard his statement. ;) You can look at the stats all year long, it is very obvious that what you said is correct. One can argue about it but every single statistic proves your point which equals a slam dunk imo. He is one of the very best on hc, not the best. Haviong said this, I will say it again, that is great acomplishment by all means.

Benhur
04-09-2008, 01:55 PM
And BTW, if I wasn't clear in my previous posts, I did this solely to make a point to refute the posts that Nadal is easily on top of mens game on HC, and has absolutely no intention to say he sucks - his consistent ranking already says this, loud and clear.

For the record, I do like Nadal. I dont like Nadal the way you do doesn't mean I dont like this guy, so there really is no reason to be so combative and defensive. Calling people manipulating data is quite a serious thing, if I may.

There seems to be a lot of semanting playfulness going on here, hinging on what "being on top" means. If this entire thread is dedicated to demonstrating that Nadal is not currently the best hardcourt player, and has never been, then the thread is pointless. Everybody agrees with that point, as far as I can tell. Otherwise, please show where someone has stated that Nadal is the best player on hard courts. I haven't seen such a post.

On the other hand, if the thread is dedicated to demonstrate that Nadal does not belong *among* the top (say top 3-4) hard court players during the last 2-3 years, then the point cannot be demonstrated by the available evidence, no matter how much you twist it. He clearly has the 3rd best record, both on points and winning %. And that's hard to argue with. Is this what you are arguing with?

Maybe you should be more precise on what it is exacly you are trying to demonstrate. It may well be you are demonstrating what everybody agrees with from the start.

TheTruth
04-09-2008, 02:04 PM
There seems to be a lot of semanting playfulness going on here, hinging on what "being on top" means. If this entire thread is dedicated to demonstrating that Nadal is not currently the best hardcourt player, and has never been, then the thread is pointless. Everybody agrees with that point, as far as I can tell. Otherwise, please show where someone has stated that Nadal is the best player on hard courts. I haven't seen such a post.

On the other hand, if the thread is dedicated to demonstrate that Nadal does not belong *among* the top (say top 3-4) hard court players during the last 2-3 years, then the point cannot be demonstrated by the available evidence, no matter how much you twist it. He clearly has the 3rd best record, both on points and winning %. And that's hard to argue with. Is this what you are arguing with?

Maybe you should be more precise on what it is exacly you are trying to demonstrate. It may well be you are demonstrating what everybody agrees with from the start.

What you've said is so clear. There hasn't been a post to say Nadal was the best clay courter in this thread, nor have I intimated that. The second part of your post beginning with "on the other hand..." is spot on too. But, because I asked for clarification of what his point was, which I honestly still don't get, and have given up on, I am combative and defensive. Pretty sad.

TheTruth
04-09-2008, 02:10 PM
Wow you're combative...:). I guess it's my fault that I did not present the full data so that you dont trust the analysis. Okay here it is - comparison of win/loss of the top players against fellow top players in the time frame we're discussing - but first, a few assumptions: we're talking about a relatively long period of time, that is, since 2007; this time frame can be changed at any point (say, we only talk about this year, or past three weeks etc), but for every argument there'll be an assumption and this is mine. Whether it is justified, readers should have their opinions. The other difficulty of doing this analysis is that the top 8 players are different for any given week, so for the clarity of analysis we only look at the current top 8, with the exception of TMC, when it was clear who were the top 8 then. Others, such as Gonzo, who were in and out, were thus omitted from this analysis. Again - it's arbitrary, but readers should have their view whether this is okay or not :)

Federer: lost 5 out of 18 encounters against Top 8
Nadal: lost 9 out 15
Djokovic: lost 8 out 17
Davydenko: lost 4 out 9
Roddick: lost 8 out 15
....

This is not a complete list but just by listing the few it should be sufficient to support the point. Nadal, during this period of time, is clearly "one of the threats" but by no means "at the top of the game" on HC.

If we only talk about this year's performance, one impressive figure is Djokovic, who is 1 out 4 (Nadal at the same time lost 3 out 5, with two wins over Blake).

I agree with you there are many different ways to look at one's performance, tournaments results and points amassed are both excellent ways. I am just providing an alternative perspective that hopes to bring out something that is missing in those data, which is performance against top guys. This doesn't tell the whole story, but IMO, certainly tells part of the story.

One of the things they teach you in critical thinking courses is to examine the data fully. To me, that's all I was doing. Sorry if you feel it's combative. I think you are pretty combative too. So, we're even!:)

Moose Malloy
04-09-2008, 02:23 PM
vs. Fed: 2:3 lifetime; 0:1 since 2007
vs. Djokovic: 2:3 lifetime; 2:3 since 2007
vs. Davy: 1:1 lifetime; 0:1 since 2007
vs. Ferrer: 1:2 lifetime; 0:2 since 2007
vs. Roddick 1:2 lifetime; 1:1 since 2007
vs. Nalbandian 0:2 lifetime 0:2 since 2007
vs. Blake: 2:3 lifetime; 2:0 since 2007


not sure if this has been mentioned, but you do realize the top 8 has changed quite a bit since Jan '07? It's kinda odd to just use the current top 8 to prove some longterm pattern, when some of those guys you listed went in & out of the top 8 quite a bit during that span. And guys like Murray, Ljubicic, Robredo, Gasquet were in the top 8 quite a bit during that span.

Kaptain Karl
04-09-2008, 03:00 PM
We can all agree that Nadal came on tour as a "clay courter." What he's done since on grass and hardcourt is phenomenal. There are no two ways about it.You are relatively new to TT, so maybe you have not seen the dozens of threads addressing the ruination of our grass tournaments. <Edit> I just looked at your join date. Maybe it's that you were not participating in these types of discussions until recently. Maybe I don't know why I said that about your history. </Edit> Nadal can only be "no two ways about it" called "phenomenal" on grass because the Wimbledon organizers caved to the "boycott" of the dirtballers several years ago. Rafa is the lucky beneficiary of his dirtballer activists' protests.

The grass is FAR different than it was in Borg's and Mac's day. It's been slowed down so much (some) TT-ers have taken to calling the modern grass "clay courts with some green stuff on them."

I don't agree with the whole comparing people argument in the first place. All the factors are not equal.Your posting history does not support this claim. Not one bit....


... you do realize the top 8 has changed quite a bit since Jan '07? It's kinda odd to just use the current top 8 to prove some longterm pattern, when some of those guys you listed went in & out of the top 8 quite a bit during that span. And guys like Murray, Ljubicic, Robredo, Gasquet were in the top 8 quite a bit during that span.Thanks, Moose. This is one of the reasons we all will never really agree on these "who is better" topics. (And it's what spices up the conversations....)

- KK

TheTruth
04-09-2008, 03:17 PM
You are relatively new to TT, so maybe you have not seen the dozens of threads addressing the ruination of our grass tournaments. <Edit> I just looked at your join date. Maybe it's that you were not participating in these types of discussions until recently. Maybe I don't know why I said that about your history. </Edit> Nadal can only be "no two ways about it" called "phenomenal" on grass because the Wimbledon organizers caved to the "boycott" of the dirtballers several years ago. Rafa is the lucky beneficiary of his dirtballer activists' protests.

The grass is FAR different than it was in Borg's and Mac's day. It's been slowed down so much (some) TT-ers have taken to calling the modern grass "clay courts with some green stuff on them."

Your posting history does not support this claim. Not one bit....


Thanks, Moose. This is one of the reasons we all will never really agree on these "who is better" topics. (And it's what spices up the conversations....)

- KK

I've been here since June, 2006. I don't think that's so new. But this isn't the only tennis board I'm on either. I've heard all the grass court debates. I don't post on racket technologies, court surfaces, etc. I post on what intrigues me.

My posts do support my position where I don't believe in comparing people because of different factors like technology, competition, and eras, so I don't understand where that's coming from. Maybe you can show me, because it isn't a part of my thought process to compare people. I believe everyone has a right to their opinion and so do I. Why is that so hard for some people?




Here's what I see. There are a lot of people here who cannot deal with an opinion that isn't theirs.

Resurge
04-09-2008, 03:29 PM
not sure if this has been mentioned, but you do realize the top 8 has changed quite a bit since Jan '07? It's kinda odd to just use the current top 8 to prove some longterm pattern, when some of those guys you listed went in & out of the top 8 quite a bit during that span. And guys like Murray, Ljubicic, Robredo, Gasquet were in the top 8 quite a bit during that span.

Kindly read the paragraph in my post before this part :)

Kaptain Karl
04-09-2008, 03:47 PM
My posts do support my position where I don't believe in comparing people because of different factors like technology, competition, and eras, so I don't understand where that's coming from. Maybe you can show me, because it isn't a part of my thought process to compare people.Oh, come on!

I just did a SEARCH on your recent posts. About 50% of them (I stopped after two pages.) contrast one player to another ... or to several.

This is just what I meant by writing your posting style doesn't support your claim of being "above" these debates.

Here's what I see. There are a lot of people here who cannot deal with an opinion that isn't theirs.You personify this very POV you describe, if you ask me.

- KK

Benhur
04-09-2008, 04:23 PM
because the Wimbledon organizers caved to the "boycott" of the dirtballers several years ago. Rafa is the lucky beneficiary of his dirtballer activists' protests.

There was never any boycott by dirtballers or anybody else to change the grass at Wimbledon. Your are making this up. I challenge you to produce any evidence that any players had any boycott demanding different grass.

There was a question once regarding the *seeding* format where some players like Corretja felt it was too arbitrary and said they would not play unless their based their seeding on some objective measure. This had nothing to do with changing the grass

[QUOTE]The grass is FAR different than it was in Borg's and Mac's day. It's been slowed down so much (some) TT-ers have taken to calling the modern grass "clay courts with some green stuff on them."

The grass was changed in 2001 when they started using 100% perennial rye grass instead of a combination of 70% rye and 30% fescue. The main change that caused the higher and truer bounces, more similar to a hardcourt, was the replacement of the undersoil with harder soil.

Since they changed the grass the following finals ocurred:

Ivanisevic - Rafter
Hewitt - Nalbandian
Federer - Philippoussis
Federer - Roddick
Federer - Roddick
Federer - Nadal
Federer - Nadal

Rusedski and Henman made some comments as far back as 2003-2004 or so, to the effect they felt they had better chances in the old stuff. One of them said he missed the old grass because it was more like a "russian roulette" due to the delightful unpredictability of the bounces. Other than that, nobody was saying much at all about the grass being slower, what with people like Philippoussis, Federer and Roddick in all those finals. It was only when Nadal got to the final that the big hoopla began on these boards.

The courts now play a bit more similarly to hard courts, especially because of the truer bounce. The overt reason the Wimbledon people gave for the change was that the old grass was much less durable and that the courts were almost totally bare by the end of the second week, full of bumps etc because players were more and more physical and destructive in their rompings.

This is partly true. The other part, which they don't mention so often, is that the vast majority of the public was becoming very bored with what men's wimbledon tennis had become in the 90s, where the average length of a point was about two seconds -- not very conducive to get your blood racing as a spectator. The tv viewers were tuning out in droves - and the media has a way of knowing when viewers are tuning out in droves. So they did something about it.

Quoting "some TT-ers" as a source of authority on the "clay-like" conditions of the courts is not very convincing.

Again, your assertion that they changed the grass to accomodate a "boycott by dirtballers" is entirely your fabrication, unless you back it up.

If for any particular reason you wish to inform yourself about why and when and how and what they changed, you may read the comments by Mr Eddie Seaward, who is the man in charge of the Wimbledon courts (head grounskeeper). I suspect he knows what he is talking about better than you and the TT-ers you quote, who have never stepped on the courts.

http://www2.nysun.com/article/35116?page_no=1

TheTruth
04-09-2008, 04:24 PM
Oh, come on!

I just did a SEARCH on your recent posts. About 50% of them (I stopped after two pages.) contrast one player to another ... or to several.

This is just what I meant by writing your posting style doesn't support your claim of being "above" these debates.

You personify this very POV you describe, if you ask me.

- KK

Excuse me, but I did a search on my posts too, and I found nothing of the sort. As I remember you were one of the posters who was dogging my posts when I came here because you didn't like my opinion. I haven't posted to you, or about you since. So, what is your latest witch hunt about?

drakulie
04-09-2008, 04:27 PM
There was never any boycott by dirtballers or anybody else to change the grass at Wimbledon. Your are making this up.

Not too long ago there were a lot of clay courters who skipped Wimbledon, because they felt they had no chance there. I would call that a boycott.

miniRafa386
04-09-2008, 04:43 PM
im making excuses for nadal at the moment:
against ferrer- david was playin INSANE against him both times
nalby- same thing, end of last year, nalby was untouchable
misha aka head basher- after 4 hour 3 setter with moya
tsonga- willie was on fire that tourny, but rafa got him back at IW
seppi- that was a crappy match by nadal, he even said he lost his concentration
dubai- andy was playin insane, beat nadal AND djoko in straights
djoko IW- nadal wasnt so hot after beating tsonga and blake, mental exhaustion
miami- two things: 1. davy was treeing so bad, 2. nadal wasnt playing NEARLY as well as he played against blake, berdych, or mathieu.

anyway, only 7/10 were to the eventual winners of the tourny

sorry for the bias, but its true

Benhur
04-09-2008, 04:47 PM
Not too long ago there were a lot of clay courters who skipped Wimbledon, because they felt they had no chance there. I would call that a boycott.

That is not a boycott at all. Who were these claycourters? How numerous? Any good players among them that Wimbledon should have cared about their absence to the point of changing its surface? Give me a break!

There have also been plenty of lower-ranked hardcourt specialists who skipped the French and most of the clay season because of similar reasons. Nobody cared. In any case, none of that is a "boycott."

Give me the names of three top-10 players who skipped Wimbledon in the 90s just because they didn't like the surface.

edberg505
04-09-2008, 05:00 PM
im making excuses for nadal at the moment:
against ferrer- david was playin INSANE against him both times
nalby- same thing, end of last year, nalby was untouchable
misha aka head basher- after 4 hour 3 setter with moya
tsonga- willie was on fire that tourny, but rafa got him back at IW
seppi- that was a crappy match by nadal, he even said he lost his concentration
dubai- andy was playin insane, beat nadal AND djoko in straights
djoko IW- nadal wasnt so hot after beating tsonga and blake, mental exhaustion
miami- two things: 1. davy was treeing so bad, 2. nadal wasnt playing NEARLY as well as he played against blake, berdych, or mathieu.

anyway, only 7/10 were to the eventual winners of the tourny

sorry for the bias, but its true

Spoken like a true Nadal fan.

Kaptain Karl
04-09-2008, 07:45 PM
There was never any boycott by dirtballers or anybody else to change the grass at Wimbledon. Your are [sic] making this up.You are funny.

#1 - Note the word "boycott" is in quotes in my previous post. (Did you happen to notice that?) Think about why someone might do this ... or go take a Writing Class and get back to me.

#2 - Where've you been? Dirtballers have been bailing on Wimby for years.

#3 - Google is your friend. Before you spout off on a topic, maybe you should learn a little about it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/sports_talk/1382614.stm).

I challenge you to produce any evidence that any players had any boycott demanding different grass.Here's another lesson in writing: When someone starts a new paragraph, the new paragraph may not be as connected to the same thought in the previous paragraph as you pretended.

I've posted many times about how AELTCC caved to the clay courters ... and how nonsensical it was they did. It has never made any sense to me....

There was a question once regarding the *seeding* format where some players like Corretja felt it was too arbitrary and said they would not play unless their based their seeding on some objective measure.a) The complaints about Wimby seeds was regular; not a one-time thing.
b) Gee! As you posted, "they said they would not play unless ...." That almost reads like a threatened "boycott" doesn't it. (Sheesh!)

This had nothing to do with changing the grassNWIP

Since they changed the grass the following finals ocurred:

Ivanisevic - Rafter
Hewitt - Nalbandian
Federer - Philippoussis
Federer - Roddick
Federer - Roddick
Federer - Nadal
Federer - NadalThank you for making my argument for me. Nadal benefitted from the "boycott" of the clay courters making Wimby cave to their demands (and then some). Wimby made their courts bounce more like clay courts and less like "grass".

... nobody was saying much at all about the grass being slower, what with people like Philippoussis, Federer and Roddick in all those finals.Not true. You haven't been paying attention. A year or two ago Henman was pressed into making public statements that "the courts haven't been changed to help the clay court specialists" (or something like that). [Oh. And for the record, it is my contention AELTCC "pressed" Henman. It is also my contention Henman didn't believe it even when he was saying it. I believe he "took one for the team...." Don't ask me to produce "evidence". It's my opinon.]

It was only when Nadal got to the final that the big hoopla began on these boards.Again, where've you been?

The courts now play a bit more similarly to hard courts, especially because of the truer bounce.Nobody who has been objectively observing Wimbledon for the last three decades agrees with this assertion. ("Objectively" is the key word.)

The overt reason the Wimbledon people gave for the change was that the old grass was much less durable and that the courts were almost totally bare by the end of the second week, full of bumps etc because players were more and more physical and destructive in their rompings.Yeah. And I never bought this garbage for a minute. (The changes to AELTCC's courts are intriguing, huh? I suspect we'll learn the truth ... in about 20 more years.)

Quoting "some TT-ers" as a source of authority on the "clay-like" conditions of the courts is not very convincing.Okay. Don't be convinced. It's an opinion forum; choose to believe what you will. I just reported what I've been reading here over the years.


... you may read the comments by Mr Eddie Seaward, who is the man in charge of the Wimbledon courts (head grounskeeper). [sic]Seen it before. He's part of the "conspiracy" IMO.

I suspect he knows what he is talking about better than you and the TT-ers you quote, who have never stepped on the courts.How do you know I've not been there?


Excuse me, but I did a search on my posts too, and I found nothing of the sort.I'm *shocked*.

As I remember you were one of the posters who was dogging my posts when I came here because you didn't like my opinion. I haven't posted to you, or about you since. So, what is your latest witch hunt about?You flatter yourself. I don't "dog" your posts. I'm on no "witch hunt."

The most time I've spent thinking about your posts just occurred ^^ up there.

- KK

Resurge
04-09-2008, 10:22 PM
There seems to be a lot of semanting playfulness going on here, hinging on what "being on top" means. If this entire thread is dedicated to demonstrating that Nadal is not currently the best hardcourt player, and has never been, then the thread is pointless. Everybody agrees with that point, as far as I can tell. Otherwise, please show where someone has stated that Nadal is the best player on hard courts. I haven't seen such a post.

On the other hand, if the thread is dedicated to demonstrate that Nadal does not belong *among* the top (say top 3-4) hard court players during the last 2-3 years, then the point cannot be demonstrated by the available evidence, no matter how much you twist it. He clearly has the 3rd best record, both on points and winning %. And that's hard to argue with. Is this what you are arguing with?

Maybe you should be more precise on what it is exacly you are trying to demonstrate. It may well be you are demonstrating what everybody agrees with from the start.


Haha, I know I wouldn't have to wait too long for another comment like this pops up...and pls take my word, this is not the first, and will not be the the last. This is not exactly saying Nadal is the best hard court player but has the same flavor of ignoring the fact that Djokor is leading Rafa by more than 80 points and saying Rafa's been the best on HC this year...See the comment by Tzinc (sorry mate, just randomly ran into your post):

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=190777

Really, I've nothing against Rafa, but I do still get annoyed by the total ignorance of the facts out there, like people saying Federer is playing as well as he does two years ago. Although I guess I should get use to it.

There seems to be a lot of semanting playfulness going on here, hinging on what "being on top" means. If this entire thread is dedicated to demonstrating that Nadal is not currently the best hardcourt player, and has never been, then the thread is pointless. Everybody agrees with that point, as far as I can tell. Otherwise, please show where someone has stated that Nadal is the best player on hard courts. I haven't seen such a post.

On the other hand, if the thread is dedicated to demonstrate that Nadal does not belong *among* the top (say top 3-4) hard court players during the last 2-3 years, then the point cannot be demonstrated by the available evidence, no matter how much you twist it. He clearly has the 3rd best record, both on points and winning %. And that's hard to argue with. Is this what you are arguing with?

Maybe you should be more precise on what it is exacly you are trying to demonstrate. It may well be you are demonstrating what everybody agrees with from the start.

If you actually spend time read my posts, I said at least three times in different places (in this thread) that if anyone would deny Nadal is one of the best players on this surface that would be total blindness. Does that answer your question?

edmondsm
04-09-2008, 11:01 PM
You are funny.

#1 - Note the word "boycott" is in quotes in my previous post. (Did you happen to notice that?) Think about why someone might do this ... or go take a Writing Class and get back to me.

#2 - Where've you been? Dirtballers have been bailing on Wimby for years.

#3 - Google is your friend. Before you spout off on a topic, maybe you should learn a little about it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/sports_talk/1382614.stm).

Not to barge in here but Kaptain, you certainly get the title of "meanest mod". Why do you feel the need to be so condiscending? From what I've read it doesn't appear that you were provoked.

And that link to the "boycott" that you referred to says that the......."boycott"......was all about the policy of seeding players. Not the surface. So I don't really see your point.

I'd also like to say that when a person starts making antagonistic comments about another poster's grammer and command of punctuation ("Take a writing class"........"Think about why someone might do this and get back to me") it just comes off sounding petty and pathetic. Just my opinion.

Moose Malloy
04-10-2008, 08:42 AM
The grass was changed in 2001 when they started using 100% perennial rye grass instead of a combination of 70% rye and 30% fescue. The main change that caused the higher and truer bounces, more similar to a hardcourt, was the replacement of the undersoil with harder soil.

Since they changed the grass the following finals ocurred:


I don't have links(but have seen them here before), but in 2001 they didn't use 100% rye, I think it was 50-50 or maybe less actually, but that was the 1st year they used rye at all I believe. In 2002 they increased the ratio of rye even more(not sure if it was to 100% though)
In 2001, none of the players really noticed(and Goran still served 200 aces)
In 2002, quite a few noticed the change.
So there were really 2 changes that Wimbledon made, one in '01 & one in '02.

There have also been plenty of lower-ranked hardcourt specialists who skipped the French and most of the clay season because of similar reasons

Really? like who? no one ever seems to skip the French, no matter how sucky they are on clay.

Give me the names of three top-10 players who skipped Wimbledon in the 90s just because they didn't like the surface.

Well Muster for one.

Quoting "some TT-ers" as a source of authority on the "clay-like" conditions of the courts is not very convincing.


Yeah, this is BS, however 'slow' Wimbledon now is, why is it that players still hit more aces there than the other slams?

Many factors caused the changes the way the players play at Wimbledon now, the most important factor imo being the influence of academy style tennis on players that grew up in the 80s. Volleying was not emphasized at all in those factories.

And many forget that Sampras, Rafter, etc were dying breeds when they were on tour in the 90s, S&V truly hasn't been a common playing style on tour since the 80s. Wimbledon has nothing to do with the fact that Andy Roddick or Novak Djokovic never tried to hit a volley in their lives until they were 20, & therefore are rather uncomfortable coming forward, even on grass.

daddy
04-10-2008, 08:52 AM
#2 - Where've you been? Dirtballers have been bailing on Wimby for years.

#3 - Google is your friend. Before you spout off on a topic, maybe you should learn a little about it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/sports_talk/1382614.stm).
- KK

Interesting. One of my friends says 'I know so much that i contradict myself' .. that being a quote of someone but I can not remember who was the guy.

You surely wrote a few things which are contradictory. Tsonga is bailing on all the clay court tourneys through his career yet noone seems to care he does not know how to play on dirt. Many others do the same. The debate you mentioned was about the seedings if I remember well, not about the surface ?

edberg505
04-10-2008, 09:40 AM
Interesting. One of my friends says 'I know so much that i contradict myself' .. that being a quote of someone but I can not remember who was the guy.

You surely wrote a few things which are contradictory. Tsonga is bailing on all the clay court tourneys through his career yet noone seems to care he does not know how to play on dirt. Many others do the same. The debate you mentioned was about the seedings if I remember well, not about the surface ?

He didn't bail on anything. He turned pro in 2004 and since then has had a string of injuries until the start of the 2007 season.

daddy
04-10-2008, 09:44 AM
He didn't bail on anything. He turned pro in 2004 and since then has had a string of injuries until the start of the 2007 season.

He played a total of 1 ( ONE ) ATP level clay court tournaments. If my memory serves me well, a few weeks ago while I was reviewing his career thus far, I managed to count that he participated in more than 120 other ATP level tournaments ( non clay court ).

It is highly unlikely he was injured for all the other clay court tournaments he did not take part in. You would expect him to play around 15 - 20 clay court tourneys so far if he has played 120 non clay ones, with or without injuries.

edberg505
04-10-2008, 09:56 AM
He played a total of 1 ( ONE ) ATP level clay court tournaments. If my memory serves me well, a few weeks ago while I was reviewing his career thus far, I managed to count that he participated in more than 120 other ATP level tournaments ( non clay court ).

It is highly unlikely he was injured for all the other clay court tournaments he did not take part in. You would expect him to play around 15 - 20 clay court tourneys so far if he has played 120 non clay ones, with or without injuries.

The vast majority of the tournaments that he has played in from 04 to 08 were futures. Now I don't know about you, but if I was trying get my ranking up so I can get direct entries in to ATP level events I would play on a surface that would suit my game.

Edit: I just check his record and he didn't even play close to 120 events espcially between now and when he turned pro.

daddy
04-10-2008, 10:03 AM
The vast majority of the tournaments that he has played in from 04 to 08 were futures. Now I don't know about you, but if I was trying get my ranking up so I can get direct entries in to ATP level events I would play on a surface that would suit my game.

I just said he could have played more clay court tournaments if he wanted to - this is correct. He did not want to. He was injured a lot of the time and that is also correct, he played a lot of ch and fu tournaments and that is also correct. But if we are talking about the clay, it is not to his liking ( he figured that out a long time ago, like 5 years ago ) and he just skips those, thats ok by me. But people were talking about other guys skiping grass, I just mentioned him skiping clay.

edberg505
04-10-2008, 10:09 AM
I just said he could have played more clay court tournaments if he wanted to - this is correct. He did not want to. He was injured a lot of the time and that is also correct, he played a lot of ch and fu tournaments and that is also correct. But if we are talking about the clay, it is not to his liking ( he figured that out a long time ago, like 5 years ago ) and he just skips those, thats ok by me. But people were talking about other guys skiping grass, I just mentioned him skiping clay.

But how do you know that it isn't to his liking? How about we give the guy a chance to play a full year and then we can make that assumption.

daddy
04-10-2008, 10:13 AM
But how do you know that it isn't to his liking? How about we give the guy a chance to play a full year and then we can make that assumption.

His early days futures record was something around 8-12. It was bad considering he played w/ guys who were ranked in 1000+ and whom he beat easily on other surfaces. I am not sure how can you deny that he does not like the clay when he did not set his foot on clay for 5 years, he managed to play more than a few hard/grass/carpet tourneys during those 5 years. It is just obvious.

edberg505
04-10-2008, 10:24 AM
His early days futures record was something around 8-12. It was bad considering he played w/ guys who were ranked in 1000+ and whom he beat easily on other surfaces. I am not sure how can you deny that he does not like the clay when he did not set his foot on clay for 5 years, he managed to play more than a few hard/grass/carpet tourneys during those 5 years. It is just obvious.

First of all, I distinctly remember him playing Andy Roddick in the 1st round of the FO in 2005 (that was the first time I became a fan) so that 5 year statement is completely false. And secondly according to you he will just skip Rome, Monte Carlo, Hamburg, and the FO because he doesn't like playing on it. I'm willing to bet that he will play the majority of them but I guess we will see.

Kaptain Karl
04-10-2008, 10:24 AM
Not to barge in here but ...That's a curious opening. (Because you appear not to have meant it.)

From what I've read it doesn't appear that you were provoked.I have a TT History of being really bugged when other TT-ers attempt to force me to defend a position *they* pretend I hold. I do allow it to provoke me.

For a period that pretentious form of a Straw Man bugged me so much I had many replies which consisted (solely) of "NWIP" (Not What I Posted). Some people would rather debate what they *wish* I'd posted, rather than what I actually posted. It is annoying.

And that link to the "boycott" that you referred to says that the......."boycott"......was all about the policy of seeding players. Not the surface. So I don't really see your point.A good example of what bugs me. I never posted the threatened boycott was about the surface. Another TT-er pretended I did ... and you apparently picked up on her misdirection.

"My point" was the clay courters (strangely) seem to have been able to exercise pressure on AELTCC which is way out of proportion to what I (and many tennis fans and observers) would expect. Not only did AELTCC cave on the seedings ... they have spent the last decade "adjusting" other factors (like the surface ... like the ball) to placate a handful of noisy crybabies. Nadal wasn't part of that threatened boycott, but he certainly has been the beneficiary of AELTCC's bowing and scraping to the dirtballers, hasn't he?



You surely wrote a few things which are contradictory. Tsonga is bailing on all the clay court tourneys through his career yet noone seems to care he does not know how to play on dirt.I haven't posted about Tsonga (prior to this) in this thread. What are you reading? And how does this support your claim that I've made contradictory posts?

Many others do the same.So what? And how does this support your claim that I've made contradictory posts?

The debate you mentioned was about the seedings if I remember well, not about the surface ?NWIP

- KK

daddy
04-10-2008, 10:33 AM
I haven't posted about Tsonga (prior to this) in this thread. What are you reading? And how does this support your claim that I've made contradictory posts?

So what? And how does this support your claim that I've made contradictory posts?
- KK

Okay mate. First lets chat about your ways of expressing yourself. I dont care if you are provoked or not, either you will treat people with respect ( especially the ones who treat you in such way ) or you will get your own medicine back. As far as I can tell, you chose to express yourself like this leving me no other option than to think you are a complete idiot for not being able to say what you mean and control your temper and emotions.

As for the issue, you said some people skipped Wimby. He said some people skipped clay. You said who - I gave you one option. Tsonga does not like clay. Will RG organisers grow grass in Paris because the hot shot of this years AO is not a clay lover ?

edmondsm
04-10-2008, 10:57 AM
That's a curious opening. (Because you appear not to have meant it.)

I just don't want it to look like I'm roaming around looking for an argument to get in.



A good example of what bugs me. I never posted the threatened boycott was about the surface. Another TT-er pretended I did ... and you apparently picked up on her misdirection.

Yes you did. Post #66, here it is.

Rafa is the lucky beneficiary of his dirtballer activists' protests.

The grass is FAR different than it was in Borg's and Mac's day. It's been slowed down so much (some) TT-ers have taken to calling the modern grass "clay courts with some green stuff on them."


If you are going to make an argument and then post a link that doesn't address that argument specifically then you look foolish. Especially when your post was so antagonistic in regards to grammer and the use of qoutes.

Kaptain Karl
04-10-2008, 11:04 AM
Okay mate. Oh, goodie! We're "mates" now....

As for the issue, you said some people skipped Wimby. He said some people skipped clay. You said who ...NWIP!!! I never asked this question. I suspected you were confusing me with someone else....


Yes you did. Post #66, here it is.I already addressed this. Your "proof" doesn't support your claim. (Go read the thread, please.)

If you are going to make an argument and then post a link that doesn't address that argument specifically then you look foolish.Ummm, isn't this what you just did? You look foolish.

Especially when your post was so antagonistic in regards to grammer and the use of qoutes.It's "grammar" ... and "quotes". I know! But it was just sitting there...!

- KK

edmondsm
04-10-2008, 11:22 AM
I already addressed this. Your "proof" doesn't support your claim. (Go read the thread, please.)

Well you didn't address it in this thread. (I did go and read it again) What you DID was make the claim that dirtballers protesting was what caused Wimbledon to slow its conditions and then offer a link that said nothing on the subject. I'm not arguing either way, but it makes you look like you have no evidence.

Ummm, isn't this what you just did? You look foolish.

What are you talking about? I didn't post a link. Is this the problem? You're hallucinating?

It's "grammar" ... and "quotes". I know! But it was just sitting there...!

Well done. You are a very articulate dude, yet seem to possess the maturity of an 8th grader. I wonder why you feel the need to be so petty and condiscending. (I could fill a page with examples just from this thread.) Get picked on in school alot?

TheTruth
04-10-2008, 01:27 PM
[QUOTE=Kaptain Karl;2239964]You are funny.

You flatter yourself. I don't "dog" your posts. I'm on no "witch hunt."

Attention from you isn't a feather in my cap by any means. Since you like to give writing advice, you of all people should have realized I used past tense. I said, and I'm paraphrasing, "at one time you were dogging my posts. You were. Being snide in no way negates your witch hunting. You stopped for reasons unknown, and for that I'm eternally grateful.

The most time I've spent thinking about your posts just occurred ^^ up there.

You still get a sly one in every now and then, but it doesn't matter one way or the other. What's funny is that the posts happened so long ago and it's obvious you still have an axe to grind. The scary thing is that you're listed as a moderator!

edmondsm
04-10-2008, 01:33 PM
You still get a sly one in every now and then, but it doesn't matter one way or the other. The only scary thing I see is that you're listed as a moderator!

I was thinking the same thing. You'd think that TW would want their mods to show a little more class. In any case you should be careful, I'm sure he's going to come around and make fun of you for messing up the "quote" function.

TheTruth
04-10-2008, 01:50 PM
I was thinking the same thing. You'd think that TW would want their mods to show a little more class. In any case you should be careful, I'm sure he's going to come around and make fun of you for messing up the "quote" function.

But you know what? It doesn't even matter. Regardless of what others do I still don't dislike them enough to allow them to make an impact on my life. So, do what you do. It's all good!

Benhur
04-10-2008, 02:40 PM
[QUOTE=Kaptain Karl;2239964]You are funny.

A gift you obviously lack.

#1 - Note the word "boycott" is in quotes in my previous post. (Did you happen to notice that?)

Definitely. But since you did not explain what you meant, I still think the closest meaning to "boycott" is boycott, as you acknowledge later.

Think about why someone might do this ... or go take a Writing Class and get back to me.

Why don't you go take a Conception Class so that you may be re-created in the womb with a brand new brain? It would be an enormous help. Get back to me after you do.

#2 - Where've you been? Dirtballers have been bailing on Wimby for years

Would you care naming some of those mighty dirtballers? Who are they?
After you tell me who they are, show me when they were so missed at Wimbledon as to convince the Wimbledon establishent to change the surface in order to win them back.

#3 - Google is your friend. Before you spout off on a topic, maybe you should learn a little about it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/sports_talk/1382614.stm).

The seeding format issue has nothing to do with the decision to change the surface, which is what you wrote in your original post in your reply to another poster. This is what you wrote:

Nadal can only be "no two ways about it" called "phenomenal" on grass because the Wimbledon organizers caved to the "boycott" of the dirtballers several years ago. Rafa is the lucky beneficiary of his dirtballer activists' protests. The grass is FAR different than it was in Borg's and Mac's day. It's been slowed down so much (some) TT-ers have taken to calling the modern grass "clay courts with some green stuff on them."

If you are not saying that the dirballer's "boycott" caused the grass to change and Nadal to bloom in it, maybe you can explain what you are saying.

Here's another lesson in writing

I don't take lessons in writing, or in anything else, from somber halfwit pretentious ignoramuses like you.

I've posted many times about how AELTCC caved to the clay courters ... and how nonsensical it was they did. It has never made any sense to me....

I've told you several times that the seeding issue has nothing to do with the change of surface and the alleged benefit to Nadal. You were clearly talking about a "boycott" by dirtballers that caused the grass to change. See above.

a) The complaints about Wimby seeds was regular; not a one-time thing.

How many times do you need to be told that the seeding format issue has nothing to do with the change of surface?

NWIP

On the contrary. That is exactly what you posted. Let me quote you again:

Nadal can only be "no two ways about it" called "phenomenal" on grass because the Wimbledon organizers caved to the "boycott" of the dirtballers several years ago. Rafa is the lucky beneficiary of his dirtballer activists' protests. The grass is FAR different than it was in Borg's and Mac's day. It's been slowed down so much (some) TT-ers have taken to calling the modern grass "clay courts with some green stuff on them."

If you are not talking about the surface there, what are you talking about? Can you explain in what sense the dirtballers "boycott" regarding the seeding format has caused Nadal to be a "lucky beneficiary" of the fact that the surface changed?

Thank you for making my argument for me. Nadal benefitted from the "boycott" of the clay courters making Wimby cave to their demands (and then some). Wimby made their courts bounce more like clay courts and less like "grass".

Again, you are clearly saying what you keep denying you are saying: that the claycourtes caused Wimbledon to cave to their demands and thererefore Wimbledon changed the grass. Can you show me a report where the dirballers demanded such a thing?
If not, can you tell me what the seeding controversy has to do with changing the surface?

If it has nothing to do, why do you keep presenting the surface change as a consequence of the "boycott'

Not true. You haven't been paying attention. A year or two ago Henman was pressed into making public statements that "the courts haven't been changed to help the clay court specialists" (or something like that). [Oh. And for the record, it is my contention AELTCC "pressed" Henman. It is also my contention Henman didn't believe it even when he was saying it. I believe he "took one for the team...." Don't ask me to produce "evidence". It's my opinon.]

Your opinion is profoundly stupid, and you are obviously unable to explain your assertion that a "boycot" by dirtballers caused the grass to change. There was no such "boycott". My conclusion that your opinions are stupid is not lacking evidence. The evidence of your stupidity lies in your own posts. The more you write, the more the evidence accumulates. You can't help it. Keep writing.


Nobody who has been objectively observing Wimbledon for the last three decades agrees with this assertion. ("Objectively" is the key word.)

The assertion was that the courts now seem to play more similarly to hard courts. (Though of course they are still grass courts.) The main change is a higher bounce and a truer bounce. If that is not the case, explain what the "objective" conclusion of an astute observer like you may be after three decades of observations. Grass has turned into clay?

Yeah. And I never bought this garbage for a minute. (The changes to AELTCC's courts are intriguing, huh? I suspect we'll learn the truth ... in about 20 more years.)

Your "conspiracy" notions are uninteresting and idiotic when backed by nothing except your own inane opinions. A plausible reason for the change is that many people were finding Wimbledon tennis boring because the average point lasted seconds, which caused tv ratings to drop. I've mentioned this in my previous post.

Your notion that the dirtballers "pressured" the Wimbledon establishment to change the surface has about as much credibility as the notion that the "cementballers" are pressuring the RG esablishment to replace clay with a new harder material.

Okay. Don't be convinced. It's an opinion forum; choose to believe what you will. I just reported what I've been reading here over the years.

Yes, I know. We have been reading a lot of garbage posters, like you, telling stories about the new Wimbledon clay.
The change took place in 2001. Where you complaining much during the two years that Roddick make the final. Do you think the change to clay helped Roddick a lot?

Seen it before. He's part of the "conspiracy" IMO.

The only conspiracy here was the one that nature contrived to create foolproof fool such as you.

How do you know I've not been there?

Just a wild guess based on your general foolishness.

I don't think I shall waste any more time on you, at least for a while. I encourage you to keep making more and more copious replies like the above, the better to put the spot light on your silliness.

Kaptain Karl
04-10-2008, 04:20 PM
Benhur , I'm not going to bother with the majority of your recent post. You are determined to dig yourself deeper into the hole of pretending I posted something I did not ... which takes the fun out of refuting your points.

All that matters is the following: Benhur, in an effort to manipulate the facts, intentionally altered my words.

Some TT-ers have made an honest mistake in quoting another. [Large post ... trying to snip it to maintain flow ... inadvertently altering the meaning of the post.] This kind of thing *does* happen....

But in this case, I think it's laughable that you would be so transparent in MISquoting me. (You'll note, Benhur, I already pointed-out -- when YOU attempted to twist my post -- there was a paragraph break in my "quoted" post.) But you audaciously edited my post in an attempt to score a debate point.

Here is the pertinent part of my post-in-question:... Nadal can only be "no two ways about it" called "phenomenal" on grass because the Wimbledon organizers caved to the "boycott" of the dirtballers several years ago. Rafa is the lucky beneficiary of his dirtballer activists' protests.

The grass is FAR different than it was in Borg's and Mac's day. It's been slowed down so much (some) TT-ers have taken to calling the modern grass "clay courts with some green stuff on them."

You then made the error of misinterpreting my post ... I challenge you to produce any evidence that any players had any boycott demanding different grass.... and trying to "rub my nose in" your misinterpretation.

If you had not been so snotty, I probably would not have delivered "the lessons"... ... Here's another lesson in writing: When someone starts a new paragraph, the new paragraph may not be as connected to the same thought in the previous paragraph as you pretended.

At this point I would have accepted your silent acquiescence -- or even your apology. Instead of either, you chose the audacious approach. You chose to deliberately change my post. (What? You thought I would not notice...?)

To my "NWIP," regarding your (stubborn) misinterpretation of my post, you posted [emphasis mine]...On the contrary. That is exactly what you posted. Let me quote you again:... and you had the nerve to "exactly(?)" edit my post with the following "quote" [emphasis mine again]....Nadal can only be "no two ways about it" called "phenomenal" on grass because the Wimbledon organizers caved to the "boycott" of the dirtballers several years ago. Rafa is the lucky beneficiary of his dirtballer activists' protests. The grass is FAR different than it was in Borg's and Mac's day. It's been slowed down so much (some) TT-ers have taken to calling the modern grass "clay courts with some green stuff on them."

Gee. I wonder how that happened? How did two paragraphs "magically" merge like that? Maybe it was a UBB glitch? (Nope.)

Benhur, you have played "The Internet Forum Game" fraudulently. Your credibility has been revealed for what it lacks. (And most forum members notice -- when another is losing their debate -- that resorting to name-calling is a sure sign the loser *knows* they are losing....)


You lose.


- KK

drakulie
04-10-2008, 04:38 PM
Benhur, all I have to say to you is>>>> Go learn something about the game.

Babb
04-10-2008, 04:42 PM
KK, why is everyone hating on you? Lol...

Benhur
04-10-2008, 05:03 PM
[Kaptain Karl;2242282] To my "NWIP," regarding your (stubborn) misinterpretation of my post, you posted [emphasis mine]...... and you had the nerve to "exactly(?)" edit my post with the following "quote" [emphasis mine again]. Nadal can only be "no two ways about it" called "phenomenal" on grass because the Wimbledon organizers caved to the "boycott" of the dirtballers several years ago. Rafa is the lucky beneficiary of his dirtballer activists' protests. The grass is FAR different than it was in Borg's and Mac's day. It's been slowed down so much (some) TT-ers have taken to calling the modern grass "clay courts with some green stuff on them."

Gee. I wonder how that happened? How did two paragraphs "magically" merge like that? Maybe it was a UBB glitch? (Nope.)

Benhur, you have played "The Internet Forum Game" fraudulently. Your credibility has been revealed for what it lacks. (And most forum members notice -- when another is losing their debate -- that resorting to name-calling is a sure sign the loser *knows* they are losing....)
You lose.


Ah, the paragraph mark was lacking. That explains it. No causal relation between two consecutive paragraphs is allowed to be perceived.

Let's see, how about this. You wrote:

Nadal benefitted from the "boycott" of the clay courters making Wimby cave to their demands (and then some). Wimby made their courts bounce more like clay courts and less like "grass".

Why didn't you write that in two paragraphs? Where is the paragraph separating the "boycott of the claycourters" [because of the seeding issue] and the caving to their demands from the fact that they made the courts "bounce more like clay?"
It is nowhere because you clearly have been explaining the grass change as a result of a "boycott" which had nothing to do with that.

Pretending that you have not been deliberately and clearly saying that the grass change was caused by a "boycott" by dirtballers is not going to convince many, when that is precisely what you have been saying. And when someone tells you that's what you have been saying, you say a paragraph mark is missing.

Play it again, Sam. These are two consecutive sentences in one single paragraph from you:

Nadal benefitted from the "boycott" of the clay courters making Wimby cave to their demands (and then some). Wimby made their courts bounce more like clay courts and less like "grass".

But Kaptain Karl is not saying what he is saying. No, no. Kaptain Karl is only stuttering about paragraph marks trying to deny what he has been repeatedly saying. He does not know what else to do.

Kaptain Karl
04-10-2008, 06:02 PM
Too late, Benny Boy. You lost.

- KK

Benhur
04-10-2008, 06:26 PM
Too late, Benny Boy. You lost.

- KK

Said the boy knocking down the chess pieces when his position was untenable.

daddy
04-11-2008, 02:47 AM
But in this case, I think it's laughable that you would be so transparent in MISquoting me. (You'll note, Benhur, I already pointed-out -- when YOU attempted to twist my post -- there was a paragraph break in my "quoted" post.) But you audaciously edited my post in an attempt to score a debate point.

You lose.


- KK

Arguments are not won and lost. You are either correct or wrong, thus the outcome depends on what you say and not who you debate against.

Benhur is just one of the guys who interpreted your posts as 'dirtballers strike threats led to eventuall change in surface which propelled Nadal's results in Wimbledon' .. You are twisting your own posts to prove you did not write what is written ? Maybe just say 'I did not mean it that way ..' or are you one of the guys unable to admit the mistake ?

edmondsm
04-11-2008, 09:19 AM
Arguments are not won and lost. You are either correct or wrong, thus the outcome depends on what you say and not who you debate against.

Benhur is just one of the guys who interpreted your posts as 'dirtballers strike threats led to eventuall change in surface which propelled Nadal's results in Wimbledon' .. You are twisting your own posts to prove you did not write what is written ? Maybe just say 'I did not mean it that way ..' or are you one of the guys unable to admit the mistake ?

Bingo.

10 char

edmondsm
04-11-2008, 09:20 AM
Anyhoo. I would just like to say that I think Nadal's hardcourt performance was stellar.:)

TheTruth
04-11-2008, 08:44 PM
Said the boy knocking down the chess pieces when his position was untenable.

How wonderfully appropriate!