PDA

View Full Version : How impressive are Nadal's 18 Masters titles?


wangs78
05-18-2010, 11:43 AM
While I think Nadal's 18 titles are impressive in that he isn't even 24 yet, so he could conceivably win 25 or even more Masters by the time he's done, thereby eclipsing the next highest mark (currently Agassi and Federer at 17), I do think that there are few things that may make this accomplishment less impressive than the numbers may suggest. Note that:

- 14 of the 18 have come on clay. Nadal's dominance on this surface has been so absolute that it's mind boggling and it's a big reason why his Master's tally is so high. I'm not trying to say that clay should be disparaged at all though. I'm just saying that a player who is particularly good on one surface is more likely to have a high tally of titles than someone who is all-around.

- The clay tourneys are all clustered together, which enables someone who is a great clay courter like Nadal to come in and sweep them up like he has for the last few years. Hard courts, on the other hand are split between late winter/early spring and then summer, so players who want to dominate hard courts would have a harder time doing so because they need to adjust their game in mid spring for clay/grass and then adjust back again after the FO/Wimby

- The clay tourneys are in the first half of the year, so players are more likely to be able to achieve per their full potential / ability given injuries generally don't start taking their toll until the second half of the year. In other words, had the clay court been in the 2nd half of the year, it would be a bit harder for Nadal to enter the clay court season every year injury free and ready to dominate.

Again, I'm not trying to take away from Nadal's achievement. The facts above have been true well before Nadal's time and no one achieved as much on clay as Nadal has (although Borg still has more FO titles of course). But I do think that his Masters tally of 18 got a lot of help from the points I state above.

volleynets
05-18-2010, 11:46 AM
The fact that 14 of 18 on clay is both a good thing and a bad thing. Good because it shows he pwns that surface but bad because less than 25% are on any other surface.

Imagine three grass Masters per year. I estimate Federer would have around 30 MS by now if that were the case.

It nonetheless is amazing for any sport because he did it at 23 years old!!

Mustard
05-18-2010, 11:49 AM
13 of the 18 have been on clay

6 Monte Carlo (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010)
5 Rome (2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010)
1 Hamburg (2008 )
1 Madrid (2010)

On hardcourts:

2 Indian Wells (2007, 2009)
2 Canada (2005 Montreal, 2008 Toronto)
1 Madrid (2005)

egn
05-18-2010, 11:54 AM
While I think Nadal's 18 titles are impressive in that he isn't even 24 yet, so he could conceivably win 25 or even more Masters by the time he's done, thereby eclipsing the next highest mark (currently Agassi and Federer at 17), I do think that there are few things that may make this accomplishment less impressive than the numbers may suggest. Note that:

- 14 of the 18 have come on clay. Nadal's dominance on this surface has been so absolute that it's mind boggling and it's a big reason why his Master's tally is so high. I'm not trying to say that clay should be disparaged at all though. I'm just saying that a player who is particularly good on one surface is more likely to have a high tally of titles than someone who is all-around.


What is the big deal? 14 of Agassi's came on hardcourts, 1 on clay and 2 on carpets. Fed is I think 12 and 5 split..Your point is valid, but nobody yet has been able to dominate an equal part. It is kind of like majors there isn't a man who has like 4 of each major. In the end almost 9 out of 10 a player will favor a certain surface.


- The clay tourneys are all clustered together, which enables someone who is a great clay courter like Nadal to come in and sweep them up like he has for the last few years. Hard courts, on the other hand are split between late winter/early spring and then summer, so players who want to dominate hard courts would have a harder time doing so because they need to adjust their game in mid spring for clay and then adjust back again after the FO/Wimby


This is a pro and con. Nadal has also had to skip or come into a tournament exhausted like Hamburg 06 and has to miss it. However then let snot forget 6 of the 9 master series or on hardcourts anyway so they have more room to say drop one.


- The clay tourneys are in the first half of the year, so players are more likely to be able to achieve per their full potential / ability given injuries generally start taking their toll in the second half of the year. In other words, had the clay court been in the 2nd half of the year, it would be a bit harder for Nadal to enter the clay court season every year injury free and ready to dominate.

Again, I'm not trying to take away from Nadal's achievement. The facts above have been true well before Nadal's time and no one achieved as much on clay as Nadal has (although Borg still has more FO titles of course). But I do think that his Masters tally of 18 got a lot of help from the points I state above.

The injury thing I see where you are coming from but I don't think that is even fair. Move the clay court season so Nadal's body has to hold out to get to it? Injuries should not really be taken into account when making the schedule, especially not the way which would be most injury likely.

Nadal's tally of 18 is impressive because it shows that even in smaller tournaments he can still dominate week in and out. The lack of five set finals are the only thing that might hurt him nowadays but how many of those would he have actually lost in five sets? I'm not thinking too many.

bolo
05-18-2010, 11:58 AM
What is the big deal? 14 of Agassi's came on hardcourts, 1 on clay and 2 on carpets. Fed is I think 12 and 5 split..Your point is valid, but nobody yet has been able to dominate an equal part. It is kind of like majors there isn't a man who has like 4 of each major. In the end almost 9 out of 10 a player will favor a certain surface.



This is a pro and con. Nadal has also had to skip or come into a tournament exhausted like Hamburg 06 and has to miss it. However then let snot forget 6 of the 9 master series or on hardcourts anyway so they have more room to say drop one.



The injury thing I see where you are coming from but I don't think that is even fair. Move the clay court season so Nadal's body has to hold out to get to it? Injuries should not really be taken into account when making the schedule, especially not the way which would be most injury likely.

Nadal's tally of 18 is impressive because it shows that even in smaller tournaments he can still dominate week in and out. The lack of five set finals are the only thing that might hurt him nowadays but how many of those would he have actually lost in five sets? I'm not thinking too many.

Good post, I agree with everything.

Moose Malloy
05-18-2010, 11:59 AM
Master Series were not required events until 2000. Many top players skipped several during the 90s & didn't get zero pointers. Its sort of a misleading record(just like weeks, years at #1, its sort of strange to dwell on that when the ranking systems have changed so much over the years)

But the ATP needs these 'records' in order to get fans to care about tennis outside of the majors I guess. Looks like its working.

I find his 6 Monte Carlo titles & 5 Italian Opens more impressive than the 18 'masters series.'
Both events have been pretty prestigious historically.

nikdom
05-18-2010, 12:08 PM
I think unlike the GS record, the specific number of master's titles is not as important for the reason Moose pointed above - a lot of players did not take those seriously until the last decade.

That said, what it shows is that Nadal has been a dominant figure in tennis, specially on clay and has also racked up impressive victories away from the surface. He's just not *as* versatile as someone like Roger, but that shouldn't be a reason not to acknowledge Nadal's prowess.

If the same discussion were about Roger, (as it is in most GOAT threads), Nadal fans will argue and bring up players from the grave to challenge Roger's place in history. As a Roger fan, I don't see any problem in the two achievements standing side by side and not having to be mutually exclusive. Roger too has an impressive Master's record (one less than Nadal).

As far as age is concerned, you can say in general that its impressive what Nadal has done at his age. A large part of it is that he has been successful on the tour from a young age onwards where his style and left-handedness have served him well from the get go. He has also had more injuries than a typical 23 yr old tennis player will have. Who knows, he may have already peaked as far as his career is concerned, like Roger at 26-27.

All in all, a commendable milestone. Still think he derives more notoriety because of his success vs Roger on the grandest stages, but that too is an accolade to Nadal's name.

viduka0101
05-18-2010, 12:10 PM
what's with the ******** poll options?:neutral:

Tsonga#1fan
05-18-2010, 12:24 PM
I voted for......Absolutely amazing. It's a record, so almost as impressive as Roger's GS record........when you consider he may have many more GS titles left in him, and Federer is running out of gas, Nadal may finish up with nearly as many slams AND hold the MS record. Watch out Roger!

urban
05-18-2010, 12:38 PM
Its very impressive, given the young age. The Masters series in the last decade seems to favor the slower or medium court players like Agassi, while the fast courters like Sampras or Federer excel on majors, which usually are played on faster surfaces. The US Open hard court is very much faster than say the Miami hard court. Nevertheless: The record goes back only to 1990, when the Masters series officially was invented, and is to be measured against Super Nine or equivalents before 1990. There in open era since 1975 Connors and especially Lendl have around 25 Super Nine titles. Mac around 22. Not to speak of older players like Laver or Rosewall, who have well over 40 resp. 30.

Cyan
05-18-2010, 01:11 PM
Absolutely amazing.

Rippy
05-18-2010, 01:13 PM
I think it has to be the middle option. Obviously any record is very impressive, especially Masters titles, which are reasonably coveted titles. But, some titles are more important than others, so it's obviously not as good as a slam record.

To be honest, I can't see how anyone would choose anything other than the middle option.

MotherMarjorie
05-18-2010, 01:23 PM
Considering that he's only won 4 of 18 masters titles were away from clay, and only 2 of his 6 GS singles titles were away from clay, I find the total number of Masters titles pretty insignificant historically. While it underscores his dominance on clay, it also points to his overall weakness on any other surface except for clay.

Its similar to the narrative used to describe Margaret Court's total GS singles record...most on grass and in Australia.

Let Mother Marjorie put it this way...the path to GOAT is not paved through clay tournaments when the majority of tournaments are on other surfaces.

Cyan
05-18-2010, 01:26 PM
It's impressive because he achieved this at 23 not at 34 like Agassi.

wangs78
05-18-2010, 01:26 PM
I think it has to be the middle option. Obviously any record is very impressive, especially Masters titles, which are reasonably coveted titles. But, some titles are more important than others, so it's obviously not as good as a slam record.

To be honest, I can't see how anyone would choose anything other than the middle option.

Completely agree, Rippy, but as you know there are always a few crazies trolling these boards :)

wangs78
05-18-2010, 01:29 PM
What is the big deal? 14 of Agassi's came on hardcourts, 1 on clay and 2 on carpets. Fed is I think 12 and 5 split..Your point is valid, but nobody yet has been able to dominate an equal part. It is kind of like majors there isn't a man who has like 4 of each major. In the end almost 9 out of 10 a player will favor a certain surface.



This is a pro and con. Nadal has also had to skip or come into a tournament exhausted like Hamburg 06 and has to miss it. However then let snot forget 6 of the 9 master series or on hardcourts anyway so they have more room to say drop one.



The injury thing I see where you are coming from but I don't think that is even fair. Move the clay court season so Nadal's body has to hold out to get to it? Injuries should not really be taken into account when making the schedule, especially not the way which would be most injury likely.

Nadal's tally of 18 is impressive because it shows that even in smaller tournaments he can still dominate week in and out. The lack of five set finals are the only thing that might hurt him nowadays but how many of those would he have actually lost in five sets? I'm not thinking too many.

Well, without resorting to specific stats and also without turning this thread into a Roger vs Rafa thread, Roger was in many of the clay court finals that Rafa won. So to your point that Roger's masters record is similarly skewed except not to clay but to hardcourts, it should be taken into consideration that Roger has a very successful record at clay court masters that is not apparent from just looking at the number of titles. Rafa, on the other hand, has not been as successful in reaching the finals at hard court masters tournaments.

coloskier
05-18-2010, 01:54 PM
Almost as impressive as Fed's 16 GS's, so still 2nd.

egn
05-18-2010, 01:57 PM
Well, without resorting to specific stats and also without turning this thread into a Roger vs Rafa thread, Roger was in many of the clay court finals that Rafa won. So to your point that Roger's masters record is similarly skewed except not to clay but to hardcourts, it should be taken into consideration that Roger has a very successful record at clay court masters that is not apparent from just looking at the number of titles. Rafa, on the other hand, has not been as successful in reaching the finals at hard court masters tournaments.

This is true but it is still skewed. He lost those. Nadal has 4 hard court runner ups and a ton of strong finishes. Since 2008 Nadal has made the quarters or better of every master series exception of 1 which is Cincinatti. Shows that he is quite strong all across the board. Nadal is no slouch on hardcourts and as of late it is safe to say Nadal is about as good on hardcourts as Fed is on clay.

TMF
05-18-2010, 02:33 PM
What is the big deal? 14 of Agassi's came on hardcourts, 1 on clay and 2 on carpets. Fed is I think 12 and 5 split..Your point is valid, but nobody yet has been able to dominate an equal part. It is kind of like majors there isn't a man who has like 4 of each major. In the end almost 9 out of 10 a player will favor a certain surface.




It IS a big deal. Winning MS on hc is a lot harder than on clay b/c most players on the tour are far better on hc. Thereís more competitive matches in the early and thus more chance for upset. Didn't MC this year ring a bell?? Winning 6 straight MS on clay is possible but do it on hc is out of a question!

Winning so much MS on clay is equivalent to Federer winning 14 MS on grass(if there were any event). Grass is not as competitive as hc too, and people would say the same to Federer since heís much better than all the players on the tour. And Iím a Federer fan.

14 MS on hc >>>>>>>>>> 14 MS on clay.

kournacopia
05-18-2010, 02:38 PM
It's impressive because he achieved this at 23 not at 34 like Agassi.

Actually that kinda makes it less impressive.

SiriusTennis
05-18-2010, 02:39 PM
Actually that kinda makes it less impressive.

Um... how?

TMF
05-18-2010, 02:39 PM
The reason why Rafa has more MS than Federer b/c he played a ton MS clay event(his best surface). Roger never had a chance to play even one MS event on grass(his best surface).

bolo
05-18-2010, 02:45 PM
Um... how?

lol, I can't wait for the answer. :)

kournacopia
05-18-2010, 02:47 PM
Um... how?

Well what's more impressive, a 14 year old running the 400 m in record time or an 80 year old? I hope you get the gist and do not need further explanations.

bolo
05-18-2010, 02:49 PM
Well what's more impressive, a 14 year old running the 400 m in record time or an 80 year old?

lol, funny, although unfortunately too obvious. :)

Cassius Clay
05-18-2010, 02:53 PM
Only a few corrections:

Roger has 16 MS not 17

More Grass MS implies less HC MS (so Federer wouldn't get 30 as someone stated)

3 Clay MS are not many, having into account that there are 9 of them.

Federer has as many clay MS as Nadal does HC MS = 5

Federer should have an advantage in winning MS because 6 out of 9 are played on HC.

big bang
05-18-2010, 02:56 PM
Only a few corrections:

Roger has 16 MS not 17

More Grass MS implies less HC MS (so Federer wouldn't get 30 as someone stated)

3 Clay MS are not many, having into account that there are 9 of them.

Federer has as many clay MS as Nadal does HC MS = 5

Federer should have an advantage in winning MS because 6 out of 9 are played on HC.
Bingo you got it right my friend!

Rippy
05-18-2010, 02:59 PM
Only a few corrections:

Roger has 16 MS not 17

More Grass MS implies less HC MS (so Federer wouldn't get 30 as someone stated)

3 Clay MS are not many, having into account that there are 9 of them.

Federer has as many clay MS as Nadal does HC MS = 5

Federer should have an advantage in winning MS because 6 out of 9 are played on HC.

Whilst I believe the excuse-making by TMF is pointless, your final point doesn't make much sense either. More players are good on HC than are "good" on grass and clay, so hardcourt will be the toughest to win Masters on.

big bang
05-18-2010, 03:13 PM
Whilst I believe the excuse-making by TMF is pointless, your final point doesn't make much sense either. More players are good on HC than are "good" on grass and clay, so hardcourt will be the toughest to win Masters on.
yes but if you can win all those HC slams then you should be able to win more HC masters right?

Pwned
05-18-2010, 03:23 PM
Only a few corrections:

Roger has 16 MS not 17

More Grass MS implies less HC MS (so Federer wouldn't get 30 as someone stated) Grass is Federer's best surface, not hard courts. If there were grass masters, Federer would win them more than he would hard court tournaments.

3 Clay MS are not many, having into account that there are 9 of them.

Federer has as many clay MS as Nadal does HC MS = 5

Federer should have an advantage in winning MS because 6 out of 9 are played on HC. Clay is Nadal's best surface and he is by far the best clay courter. Federer's best surface is grass. He would have an easier time winning grass tournaments than hard court tournaments. Therefore, a comparison of Federer's achievements on hard to Nadal's on clay is not equivalent.

There should be an equal amount of masters on each surface. I have no idea why they cannot see this. Hardcourts, especially given the ability to vary the speed and pace of the courts, is by a large margin the most indifferent surface. A wide variety of players play well on hard.

TMF
05-18-2010, 03:30 PM
Bingo you got it right my friend!

WRONG!!!

Almost every players can compete well on hc, but on clay thereís only a small percentage of good players on the tour.

If it werenít for Spain or Argentina, the clay field is a complete joke!!

TMF
05-18-2010, 03:32 PM
yes but if you can win all those HC slams then you should be able to win more HC masters right?

Right. Winning those HC MS is a piece a cake. Much easier than the one in Monte Carlo this year. Is that correct?

big bang
05-18-2010, 03:37 PM
Right. Winning those HC MS is a piece a cake. Much easier than the one in Monte Carlo this year. Is that correct?
you dont seem to get my point! Fed won lots of HC slams, thats a lot harder than HC masters right? IMO he should be able to win more HC master, no?
if he can pretty much dominate AO and USO year after year, why cant he do the same at HC masters?

kournacopia
05-18-2010, 03:39 PM
you dont seem to get my point! Fed won lots of HC slams, thats a lot harder than HC masters right? IMO he should be able to win more HC master, no?
if he can pretty much dominate AO and USO year after year, why cant he do the same at HC masters?

Slams and MC's are apples and oranges. See Federer's recent performance in any MC surface and compare that with slams.

inthemisosoup
05-18-2010, 03:40 PM
it's impressive. :) congrats to rafa!!

P_Agony
05-18-2010, 03:44 PM
It's very impressive, but I think he will reach far greater heights. 30 Masters titles is very possible if he keeps dominating the clay.

rocket
05-18-2010, 03:45 PM
yes but if you can win all those HC slams then you should be able to win more HC masters right?

since 2005, Fed's been in all slams finals but 2. i think you'll agree that it takes a lot to reach a slam final, then do it over & over, year after year.

Fed used to dominate MS too, but as he got older, something's got to give.

TMF
05-18-2010, 03:47 PM
you dont seem to get my point! Fed won lots of HC slams, thats a lot harder than HC masters right? IMO he should be able to win more HC master, no?
if he can pretty much dominate AO and USO year after year, why cant he do the same at HC masters?

5 set format would be an advantage for the better player. Everytime Roger step on the court, heís the favorite. If I was a dominant player, I would rather choose to play a 5 set format rather than the 3. Thatís b/c if in case you start out the match slow, thereís time to patience and play your way back into the match. The 3 set format is very dangerous b/c there isnít much time to find your way back til itís too late. Take a look at Roger losing in Miami and IW. Had that been a 5 setters, Federer has a better shot of beating Bagdatis and Berdych. Agree?

big bang
05-18-2010, 03:49 PM
Slams and MC's are apples and oranges. See Federer's recent performance in any MC surface and compare that with slams.
I know that, but a guy like TMF makes it sound like its only possible on clay when in fact Fed could have done the same thing on HC if he cared to.
noone can convince me that Fed is playing 100% besides slams and matches against Nadal!

big bang
05-18-2010, 03:52 PM
5 set format would be an advantage for the better player. Everytime Roger step on the court, heís the favorite. If I was a dominant player, I would rather choose to play a 5 set format rather than the 3. Thatís b/c if in case you start out the match slow, thereís time to patience and play your way back into the match. The 3 set format is very dangerous b/c there isnít much time to find your way back til itís too late. Take a look at Roger losing in Miami and IW. Had that been a 5 setters, Federer has a better shot of beating Bagdatis and Berdych. Agree?
sort of agree, but he should still be able to beat these guys best of 3. just look at how many sets he drop during slams, not many useually.

rocket
05-18-2010, 03:52 PM
i bet Murray would love to give up all his MS cups for one slam title.

big bang
05-18-2010, 03:54 PM
i bet Murray would love to give up all his MS cups for one slam title.
LOL yup! but the closest he will come is GS tennis on Wii:)

kournacopia
05-18-2010, 03:57 PM
I know that, but a guy like TMF makes it sound like its only possible on clay when in fact Fed could have done the same thing on HC if he cared to.
noone can convince me that Fed is playing 100% besides slams and matches against Nadal!

I think his only point is that it's easier to do it on clay. Hence arises the term "clay court specialist". Don't see that in HC's, because everyone is a HC specialist.

TMF
05-18-2010, 03:58 PM
Slams and MC's are apples and oranges. See Federer's recent performance in any MC surface and compare that with slams.

Thatís right. Players like Roger has more drive to play and win GS than MS.

GS is as attractive as to a hot chic kournikova comparing to Serena(a MS). haha

big bang
05-18-2010, 04:05 PM
Thatís right. Players like Roger has more drive to play and win GS than MS.

GS is as attractive as to a hot chic kournikova comparing to Serena(a MS). haha
I know slams is his only goal now, my point is just that if he wanted those HC masters as bad he could have done it..

But thos CC masters is not a cake-walk or anything, Nadal is just superior to the rest of the field on that surface!

kournacopia
05-18-2010, 04:30 PM
I know slams is his only goal now, my point is just that if he wanted those HC masters as bad he could have done it..

But thos CC masters is not a cake-walk or anything, Nadal is just superior to the rest of the field on that surface!

You just answered your own question. Nadal is superior to the rest = The rest are just crappy on clay. On HC's it's a much more even playing field, therefore harder to do.

Polaris
05-18-2010, 04:36 PM
Pretty darn impressive, but doesn't compare to the GS record, of course.

big bang
05-18-2010, 04:38 PM
You just answered your own question. Nadal is superior to the rest = The rest are just crappy on clay. On HC's it's a much more even playing field, therefore harder to do.
dont tell the rest of the field is crappy, Nadal is just the king of clay!

viduka0101
05-18-2010, 04:50 PM
You just answered your own question. Nadal is superior to the rest = The rest are just crappy on clay. On HC's it's a much more even playing field, therefore harder to do.

dont tell the rest of the field is crappy, Nadal is just the king of clay!

of course that's not true, HC have a deeper field but that doesn't imply the clay field is crap
some people have a problem with logic

bolo
05-18-2010, 04:54 PM
dont tell the rest of the field is crappy, Nadal is just the king of clay!

yep, nadal just makes the field look crappy, even federer himself said that recently. He's been too good for the generation above him (federer, ferrero, davydenko, ferrer), he's been too good for his generation (djokovic, soderling) and he's just waiting to be too good for the next guy on the list-jmdp. :)

quote from fed:

"Look, no matter what people say, I never thought my problem was clay. My problem was Rafa. The guy is unbelievable. There are some people who don't want to believe it, but that's the truth, unfortunately for a whole great generation of clay courters."

viduka0101
05-18-2010, 04:59 PM
yep, nadal just makes the field look crappy, even federer himself said that recently. He's been too good for the generation above him (federer, ferrero, davydenko, ferrer), he's been too good for his generation (djokovic, soderling) and he's just waiting to be too good for the next guy on the list-jmdp.

quote from fed:

"Look, no matter what people say, I never thought my problem was clay. My problem was Rafa. The guy is unbelievable. There are some people who don't want to believe it, but that's the truth, unfortunately for a whole great generation of clay courters."

Rafa was also the guy that put the last nails in Corias career-coffin

bolo
05-18-2010, 05:01 PM
Rafa was also the guy that put the last nails in Corias career-coffin

oh yeah, he had that 5 setter with coria and some people think coria never recovered from that loss. Coria was great to watch on clay, incredible speed and hands.

TMF
05-18-2010, 05:02 PM
dont tell the rest of the field is crappy, Nadal is just the king of clay!

Big bang, if the clay field is as half as competitive as hc, there wouldnít be any 81 matches winning streak. Itís just not possible. Notice even a player with mediocre ground game like Karlovic can upset a top player b/c of his great serve. On clay, big weapon like serve, forehand get neutralize. You simply canít play offensive game on clay like on hc. Upset happened more often on hc.

kournacopia
05-18-2010, 05:03 PM
of course that's not true, HC have a deeper field but that doesn't imply the clay field is crap
some people have a problem with logic

Fine, since the HC field is deeper, it's harder to do on HC. Don't get caught up in the words. good = not crap.

viduka0101
05-18-2010, 05:05 PM
oh yeah, he had that 5 setter with coria and some people think coria never recovered from that loss. Coria was great to watch on clay, incredible speed and hands.

actually he beat Coria several time that year,inlcuding MC and Rome finals
I didn't mean to say Coria never recovered from that specific loss btw, I just wanted to add to the list of great clay courters he had to face plus 2005 was the last year Coria was playing great tennis

big bang
05-18-2010, 05:11 PM
Big bang, if the clay field is as half as competitive as hc, there wouldnít be any 81 matches winning streak. Itís just not possible. Notice even a player with mediocre ground game like Karlovic can upset a top player b/c of his great serve. On clay, big weapon like serve, forehand get neutralize. You simply canít play offensive game on clay like on hc. Upset happened more often on hc.
I agree, its possible to dominate on clay IF you got a complete clay-game and very few ppl in history possesed that kind of skills.

bolo
05-18-2010, 05:16 PM
actually he beat Coria several time that year,inlcuding MC and Rome finals
I didn't mean to say Coria never recovered from that specific loss btw, I just wanted to add to the list of great clay courters he had to face plus 2005 was the last year Coria was playing great tennis

I think I saw the rome match I should try and track down the MC one. I think that's the one where nadal lost a set at love, that should be interesting to watch.

Mustard
05-18-2010, 05:28 PM
I think I saw the rome match I should try and track down the MC one. I think that's the one where nadal lost a set at love, that should be interesting to watch.

I should warn you that it's nowhere near as good as the Rome final, and it wasn't until the fourth set that both players played well at the same time. After Coria took an early 3-1 lead in the first set, Nadal dominated until he had a two set lead. Coria dominated the third set, and then in the fourth it became competitive.

flyer
05-19-2010, 09:15 AM
mildy impressive to hXc tennis followers

tennis history however is written at the four slams, thats where legacies are stamped, and thats the way it should be

urban
05-19-2010, 09:28 AM
I beg to differ. Tennis history is written on the tour, not only on the majors.The tour is bigger than the majors. The majors are the amateur tradition of the game. Pro tennis was and is defined by a structured, year-long series of tournaments. That was the big reform of open tennis. There are many players, who were multiple Masters winners, who are higher regarded than others with one or two majors. What means Johansson compared to Rios. Chang is more prolific than say Kafelnikov, Mecir or Leconte are higher ranked than say Moya. Nastase is still more famous than many of the players, who have won 3 majors or more.

nikdom
05-19-2010, 09:31 AM
To those who voted for option 1:
You're right, given a chance, Federer would trade his 16 GS titles for 18 Masters titles anyday. (not)


To those who voted for option 3:
Even if Nadal has benefitted from clay, he's still had to beat the other clay contenders over the years including Roger, Verdasco, Djokovic, Ferrer, Almagro etc in impressive wins. That deserves some respect.

CyBorg
05-19-2010, 09:32 AM
Three clay masters series in a calendar year is not all that much. There's six on hardcourts alone. And the WTF.

dropshot winner
05-19-2010, 09:32 AM
I beg to differ. Tennis history is written on the tour, not only on the majors.The tour is bigger than the majors. The majors are the amateur tradition of the game. Pro tennis was and is defined by a structured, year-long series of tournaments. That was the big reform of open tennis. There are many players, who were multiple Masters winners, who are higher regarded than others with one or two majors. What means Johansson compared to Rios. Chang is more prolific than say Kafelnikov, Mecir or Leconte are higher ranked than say Moya. Nastase is still more famous than many of the players, who have won 3 majors or more.

You can't compare a fluke slam winner like Tojo with a (relatively) solid top10 player like Rios who even reached #1.

You can make a bet that Murray would give every single one of his titles for a slam.

CyBorg
05-19-2010, 09:41 AM
You can't compare a fluke slam winner like Tojo with a (relatively) solid top10 player like Rios who even reached #1.

You can make a bet that Murray would give every single one of his titles for a slam.

That's irrelevant. If Murray won a major but did very little outside of those two weeks he would be a lesser player than we now know him to be.

Whether or not he would or would not trade that for a major doesn't change a thing. That's his preference.

Thomas Johansson, in spite of his major, is not a better player than Miroslav Mecir, or Marcelo Rios, maybe not even Alberto Mancini.

CyBorg
05-19-2010, 09:47 AM
I beg to differ. Tennis history is written on the tour, not only on the majors.The tour is bigger than the majors. The majors are the amateur tradition of the game. Pro tennis was and is defined by a structured, year-long series of tournaments. That was the big reform of open tennis. There are many players, who were multiple Masters winners, who are higher regarded than others with one or two majors. What means Johansson compared to Rios. Chang is more prolific than say Kafelnikov, Mecir or Leconte are higher ranked than say Moya. Nastase is still more famous than many of the players, who have won 3 majors or more.

The one thing I can add to this is that even though I agree, I can see that the current tour is altering this fine balance. The ATP tour, at this moment, is indeed what I would "minor leagues" to the four grand slam events. And many players, especially the top players, are beginning to treat masters events as warm-ups and not much more.

This does not change the fact that historically, for many-many decades, tennis was about the entirety of the tour in a kind of holistic sense. Only in the more recent times, particularly with the downgrading of all atp finals to best-of-three sets, that tennis has begun to explicitly point to the majors as the feats that truly dwarf everything else.

It's an awful thing, brought on by terrible business sense and I believe it will cripple the sport for a while, until something drastic is done by someone with enough brains and guts to shake up the tour.

I suggested in another thread that the atp has to incorporate a kind of free-market competition within itself between events, whereby organizers would have more power to market their own tournaments and structure them in ways that would make them stand out and even possibly challenge the majors. Within reason, of course. Until this happens the tour will be sterile and boring.

wangs78
05-19-2010, 10:04 AM
The one thing I can add to this is that even though I agree, I can see that the current tour is altering this fine balance. The ATP tour, at this moment, is indeed what I would "minor leagues" to the four grand slam events. And many players, especially the top players, are beginning to treat masters events as warm-ups and not much more.



I agree but we should all be mindful that this balance can change quickly. The reason the Slams have become so much more presitigious over the last decade or so was (1) Sampras' breaking of the GS record, which kind of made the GS tally of any top player sort of the yardstick by which he is judged against other greats from other eras and (2) the fact that Roger has done so well at the majors has created this mystique about them that only the *great* ones can win them consistently. In a way, the Slams have been elevated as late because of Roger (how funny is that?). We all know Roger is one of, if not THE, GOAT and because for the last 6-7 years he and he alone (ok, there's Rafa who is another all-time great) has been able to win multiple slams, the collective mindset of tennis fans is that to win Slams consistently, you must have the goods to be an all-time great.

Trust me, once Roger retires and we get back to an era that is like the 80s when you had several players win multiple slams, the perceived value of the Slam will definitely drop.

urban
05-19-2010, 10:59 AM
Agree with CyBorg. The day in day out tour is the backbone of the game. What i don't understand is, that the ATP does nothing to change that negative tone, but seems to join the chorus. Remember: the ATP was founded as a rival to the major tournament commitees and the ITF, who had their own Grand Slam Cup for some time. And writers like Bodo, who should know better, downgrade the tour even more. They are working on their own grave. Forget for a moment the Nadal-Federer rivalry, which by the way was on ice for over a year. When i see the sorry state of the overall mens top ten (Del Potro, Davydenko, Djokovic out or out of form), the ATP should do something to strenghten the tour.

illuminati
05-19-2010, 12:14 PM
I agree but we should all be mindful that this balance can change quickly. The reason the Slams have become so much more presitigious over the last decade or so was (1) Sampras' breaking of the GS record, which kind of made the GS tally of any top player sort of the yardstick by which he is judged against other greats from other eras and (2) the fact that Roger has done so well at the majors has created this mystique about them that only the *great* ones can win them consistently. In a way, the Slams have been elevated as late because of Roger (how funny is that?). We all know Roger is one of, if not THE, GOAT and because for the last 6-7 years he and he alone (ok, there's Rafa who is another all-time great) has been able to win multiple slams, the collective mindset of tennis fans is that to win Slams consistently, you must have the goods to be an all-time great.

Trust me, once Roger retires and we get back to an era that is like the 80s when you had several players win multiple slams, the perceived value of the Slam will definitely drop.


good post.
i agree.
until sampras broke emersons slam tally record which stood between 1967-2000, no one talked about slam tally records.
it took until sampras broke it to make slams more popular and breaking slam tally record a thing for goat discussions.
then federer came and beat sampras with the speed at which he did it.

maybe nadal can make masters 1000 more popular than it was before.

zagor
05-19-2010, 12:22 PM
Blame it on me growing up watching Pete and then watching Fed continue where Pete left off but while this record is certainly impressive(especially a such a young age),masters titles for me don't hold a candle to slams at all,I find slams much more important.

wangs78
05-19-2010, 12:30 PM
Blame it on me growing up watching Pete and then watching Fed continue where Pete left off but while this record is certainly impressive(especially a such a young age),masters titles for me don't hold a candle to slams at all,I find slams much more important.

Agree that Slams are more important but I think while doing well at the Masters doesn't really add to Roger's legacy anymore (only Slams do), doing poorly does detract from his legacy a bit (not that much but definitely a little).

A good comparison is Lance Armstrong in the cycling world. Sure he's got more Tour De France titles than anyone in history but his limited success at other events makes it clear to any knowledgeable fan that he is not the GOAT in cycling. Most still believe Eddy Merkx is the GOAT bc he utterly dominated everything in sight.

Now, Roger's success in 2004-2007 where he won almost everything absolves him from being someone who just focuses on Slams, but I do wish that now, even in his late 20s, that he'd do a little better at the Masters. Maybe a couple of Masters titles a year. Because you would think that if you had the ability to win a Slam, you'd have the ability to win a Master.

MichaelNadal
05-19-2010, 12:39 PM
I think slams are more important of course, which still takes nothing away from Rafa as during Federer's dominance he is the only person to win more than one slam. Thats an asterisk next to his name for how good he is. At the same time, Masters are also important and if it's about nothing but the slams, it's pointless to watch tennis for more than 4 tournaments a year. I disagree, I think what you do the entire year matters.

davey25
05-19-2010, 12:42 PM
Slams are most important but I still think Masters titles hold a very high importance as well. I find Kafelnikov for example winning 0 Masters titles a very big negative on the career of a 2 slam winner.
Nadal wont become the GOAT on Masters titles alone of course, but it does bolster his career all the same.

kournacopia
05-19-2010, 12:44 PM
Anyone know how many MC's Sampras won?

kournacopia
05-19-2010, 12:45 PM
I think slams are more important of course, which still takes nothing away from Rafa as during Federer's dominance he is the only person to win more than one slam. Thats an asterisk next to his name for how good he is. At the same time, Masters are also important and if it's about nothing but the slams, it's pointless to watch tennis for more than 4 tournaments a year. I disagree, I think what you do the entire year matters.

I think most casual fans especially before 2004, watched only the 4 majors in the year.

CMM
05-19-2010, 12:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPmYkWNwgqQ&playnext_from=TL&videos=xg8c1MTYgFI&feature=sub

MotherMarjorie
05-19-2010, 12:54 PM
good post.
i agree.
until sampras broke emersons slam tally record which stood between 1967-2000, no one talked about slam tally records.
it took until sampras broke it to make slams more popular and breaking slam tally record a thing for goat discussions.
then federer came and beat sampras with the speed at which he did it.

maybe nadal can make masters 1000 more popular than it was before.
Mother Marjorie couldn't believe her eyes when she read this posted article. Grand Slam tournaments have, and always will be the pennacle of the sport of tennis. The goal of every tennis playing professional is to win Grand Slam tournaments going back decades. Master series tournaments have never held the prestige and history that of Grand Slam tournaments. Nadal's triumphs of Masters events on clay will never change that. Ever.

TMF
05-19-2010, 12:56 PM
Anyone know how many MC's Sampras won?

LOL. I see what youíre trying to say...davey25 contradict himself b/c he holds Sampras in high regard despite winning only 11 MS(only one clay).

Semi-Pro
05-19-2010, 01:00 PM
"Impressive, but far short of any GS record (such as 16 total, 5 in a row at a GS, etc.)"

+1

MotherMarjorie
05-19-2010, 01:02 PM
LOL. I see what youíre trying to say...davey25 contradict himself b/c he holds Sampras in high regard despite winning only 11 MS(only one clay).
Don't tell Ms. Davey25 the total number of Sampras MS wins, because she'll try to add them to Sampras' Grand Slam title in an attempt to historically surpass Roger Federer. Uh, huh. Yes, she will.

MotherMarjorie
05-19-2010, 01:06 PM
To those who voted for option 1:
You're right, given a chance, Federer would trade his 16 GS titles for 18 Masters titles anyday. (not)


To those who voted for option 3:
Even if Nadal has benefitted from clay, he's still had to beat the other clay contenders over the years including Roger, Verdasco, Djokovic, Ferrer, Almagro etc in impressive wins. That deserves some respect.
Mother Marjorie thinks it might deserve a "nod," but considering clay court tennis is a much smaller part of MS and Grand Slam tournaments, not to mention that clay has never enjoyed the prestige of grass and hardcourt tennis....well, let's just say she ranks clay as a Tier II surface historically when compared to others.

Outside of Europa, clay tennis is not as popular as the other surfaces. I mean, come on...a Spaniard dominates on clay...shocking revelation.

Benhur
05-19-2010, 01:16 PM
WRONG!!!
[QUOTE]
Almost every players can compete well on hc, but on clay thereís only a small percentage of good players on the tour.

I don't believe that for a second. It is true for the US, of course, since clay courts are all but nonexistent there, and virtually 100% of the training of young players is on hard courts. But the majority of European players have had at least a significant portion of their early training done on clay, and very few feel awkward playing on it, and most of them can compete as well on it as on hard courts. Since less than 10% of players in the current top 100 are from the US, your claim that there is a small percentage of players able to compete well on clay does not make sense to me.

If it werenít for Spain or Argentina, the clay field is a complete joke!!

No, even if you take out Spain and Argentina, there would be still be plenty of players from many other countries who can play as well on clay as on hard courts. The majority in fact. except in the US.
And by the way, I believe that early training on both clay and hard courts makes you a more complete player than training on hc alone.

dmt
05-19-2010, 05:39 PM
Mother Marjorie thinks it might deserve a "nod," but considering clay court tennis is a much smaller part of MS and Grand Slam tournaments, not to mention that clay has never enjoyed the prestige of grass and hardcourt tennis....well, let's just say she ranks clay as a Tier II surface historically when compared to others.

Outside of Europa, clay tennis is not as popular as the other surfaces. I mean, come on...a Spaniard dominates on clay...shocking revelation.

and how popular is grass tennis? How many grow up plaing on that surface?

Clay is not a tier 2 surface. Yet another attempt by a hater to discredit Nadal. Winning on clay is atleast as impressive as winning on grass.

dmt
05-19-2010, 05:40 PM
If it weren't for Spain and Agrentina, we'd still have Federer, Daveydenko and Djokovic in the field so it wouldnt exactly be a joke.

TennisandMusic
05-19-2010, 05:44 PM
Why do the choices seem to either be a Federer bash, a Nadal bash, or a somewhat Nadal bash (what does "how the clay court season is structured" even mean?)

Why can't it just be very impressive in it's own right, and that's it?

malakas
05-19-2010, 07:38 PM
I was going to vote for option 1 but you had to add in the end "as impressive as GS record".Which is not.But still incredibly impressive.

davey25
05-19-2010, 08:37 PM
No, even if you take out Spain and Argentina, there would be still be plenty of players from many other countries who can play as well on clay as on hard courts.

Well is relative though. As far as top end competition what would you have left in this case. Federer would have an even easier romp to the French Open victory stand every year than he had been having at the other 3 slams for awhile. And we now have a challenge coming up with the names of each years other potential finalists, semifinalists, and quarterfinalists now with Spain and Argentina removed.

Spider
05-19-2010, 10:40 PM
I would have voted option 1 but it clearly isn't as impressive as slam records but still a damn impressive one.

Rhino
05-19-2010, 10:56 PM
Imagine three grass Masters per year. I estimate Federer would have around 30 MS by now if that were the case.



Quoted for truth.

Grand slams are 25% clay, and 25% grass, and you can see how that quickly gives a truer account of overall tennis proficiency.

Sangria
05-19-2010, 11:05 PM
Why do the choices seem to either be a Federer bash, a Nadal bash, or a somewhat Nadal bash (what does "how the clay court season is structured" even mean?)

Why can't it just be very impressive in it's own right, and that's it?

I want to live in this world :roll:

MichaelNadal
05-20-2010, 12:31 AM
I think most casual fans especially before 2004, watched only the 4 majors in the year.

Thats still the case but TV coverage has much to do with that. If masters were on NBC, I know plenty of people that would watch. Watching ANYTHING streaming is pretty hardcore.

Spider
05-20-2010, 01:35 AM
Imagine three grass Masters per year. I estimate Federer would have around 30 MS by now if that were the case.


Imagine if instead of two slams on hard courts, we had two slams on clay each year? Nadal (and not Federer) will be the greatest of all time.

wangs78
05-20-2010, 02:37 PM
I was going to vote for option 1 but you had to add in the end "as impressive as GS record".Which is not.But still incredibly impressive.

That is why I said "ALMOST as impressive". Are you a journalist? You seem very good and leaving out important words to change the meaning of what was actually stated. =p

Mustard
05-20-2010, 03:03 PM
Anyone know how many MC's Sampras won?

Pete Sampras has won:

Australian Open: 1994, 1997
Indian Wells: 1994, 1995
Miami: 1993, 1994, 2000
Rome: 1994
Wimbledon: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000
Cincinnati: 1992, 1997, 1999
US Open: 1990, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2002
Paris: 1995, 1997
World Championships: 1991, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1999
Grand Slam Cup: 1990, 1997
Davis Cup: 1992, 1995

veroniquem
05-20-2010, 03:08 PM
Pete Sampras has won 11 master shields. (The grand slam cup was a total joke by the way, fortunately it didn't last long, a lot of top players never participated).

Rippy
05-20-2010, 03:08 PM
I would have voted option 1 but it clearly isn't as impressive as slam records but still a damn impressive one.

Is that not option 2 then? :neutral:

Mustard
05-20-2010, 03:16 PM
Rafael Nadal has won:

Australian Open: 2009
Indian Wells: 2007, 2009
Monte Carlo: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
Rome: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010
Hamburg: 2008
Madrid (clay): 2010
French Open: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
Wimbledon: 2008
Canada: 2005 (Montreal), 2008 (Toronto)
Olympics: 2008
Madrid (indoor hardcourt): 2005
Davis Cup: 2004, 2009


Roger Federer has won:

Australian Open: 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010
Indian Wells: 2004, 2005, 2006
Miami: 2005, 2006
Hamburg: 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007
Madrid (clay): 2009
French Open: 2009
Wimbledon: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Canada: 2004 (Toronto), 2006 (Toronto)
Cincinnati: 2005, 2007, 2009
US Open: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
Madrid (indoor hardcourt): 2006
Masters Cup: 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007

davey25
05-20-2010, 03:17 PM
Federer will probably surpass Agassi's total too although maybe not much. He will never catch Nadal in this category.

Mustard
05-20-2010, 03:35 PM
Pete Sampras has won 11 master shields. (The grand slam cup was a total joke by the way, fortunately it didn't last long, a lot of top players never participated).

It lasted from 1990-1999 before it combined with the World Championships to form the Masters Cup in 2000. 1993 when Korda won was sensational. Ivanisevic beating Martin (1995), Becker beating Ivanisevic (1996) and Rios beating Agassi (1998 ) are great finals I remember.

From 1990-1996, the Grand Slam Cup was always the last tournament of the year, even after the Davis Cup final. But from 1997-1999, it was brought forward a few months.

TMF
05-20-2010, 03:39 PM
Federer will probably surpass Agassi's total too although maybe not much. He will never catch Nadal in this category.

How can roger catch rafa if he never gets a chance to play MS on grass in his entire life. Meanwhile rafa had played nearly 20 MS events on clay, and more to come in the future. Huge difference. Donít be ridiculous to compare between the two since rafa has a clear advantage.

veroniquem
05-20-2010, 03:41 PM
Interesting to compare Fed's and Nadal's records in the 13 most important events (super 9 + 4 slams). Neither has won a tournament more than 6 times. Both have won one tournament 6 times. There are 3 Fed has never won (Monte-Carlo, Rome and Paris indoor) 4 for Nadal (Miami, Cincinnati, USO and Paris indoor). Given how much younger than Fed Nadal is, I would say Rafa's record is quite impressive.
0 = Monte-Carlo, Rome, Paris indoor (F)
Miami, Cincy, USO, Paris indoor (N)
1 = RG, Madrid indoor (F)
AO, Wimbledon, Madrid indoor (N)
2 = Miami, Canada (F)
IW, 3rd clay master(H/M),Canada(N)
3 = IW, Cincy (F)
none (N)
4 = AO (F)
RG (N)
5 = 3rd clay master (H/M), USO (F)
Rome (N)
6= Wimbledon (F)
Monte-Carlo (N)

Mustard
05-20-2010, 03:42 PM
How can roger catch rafa if he never gets a chance to play MS on grass in his entire life. Meanwhile rafa had played nearly 20 MS events on clay, and more to come in the future. Huge difference. Don’t be ridiculous to compare between the two since rafa has a clear advantage.

All what ifs. What if there were 2 clay-court grand slams every year and only 1 hardcourt slam? Rafa would probably have over 10 slams by now.

TMF
05-20-2010, 04:24 PM
All what ifs. What if there were 2 clay-court grand slams every year and only 1 hardcourt slam? Rafa would probably have over 10 slams by now.

You are ruling out the possibility that Roger would gain more and rafa gain less had there were MS grass and no MS clay.

Iím basing on their best surface they play on and nothing else. With their game suit for certain surface and their results, I think it would make a huge difference.

And I agree more number of slam on clay would increase rafa winning more slam.

JeMar
05-20-2010, 04:27 PM
lol, who said it's on par with 16 slams? Come on, don't be ashamed.

Fuintur
05-20-2010, 04:59 PM
[...]Mecir or Leconte are higher ranked than say Moya.

ŅŅAre they?? :(

[...]This does not change the fact that historically, for many-many decades, tennis was about the entirety of the tour in a kind of holistic sense. Only in the more recent times, particularly with the downgrading of all atp finals to best-of-three sets, that tennis has begun to explicitly point to the majors as the feats that truly dwarf everything else.

Wasn't it because in the 2006 Rome MS final the two top players were so worn out that they couldnt even play Hamburg the following week? Is that the root to it or was it the last straw?

It's an awful thing, brought on by terrible business sense and I believe it will cripple the sport for a while, until something drastic is done by someone with enough brains and guts to shake up the tour.

I suggested in another thread that the atp has to incorporate a kind of free-market competition within itself between events, whereby organizers would have more power to market their own tournaments and structure them in ways that would make them stand out and even possibly challenge the majors. Within reason, of course. Until this happens the tour will be sterile and boring.

They have been saying (in spanish media I believe bur I may be wrong) for a while now that Jon Tiriac was trying to do it, starting with Madrid's Master, that's why the prize keeps growing there. Yet Nadal kept saying that "Slams are four and no more than four should they be".

MotherMarjorie
05-20-2010, 05:57 PM
and how popular is grass tennis? How many grow up plaing on that surface?

Clay is not a tier 2 surface. Yet another attempt by a hater to discredit Nadal. Winning on clay is atleast as impressive as winning on grass.
Au contraire!

Mother Marjorie has simply underscored a narrative which has been amply discussed. If a supermajority of master series tournaments you've won are on one surface, you are super on one surface. When the discussion shifts towards Grand Slam tournaments, the rule continues to apply.

In terms of GOAT, unless you can significantly impact the Grand Slam tournaments on more than one surface, historically you might be less than significant.

So, don't blame Mother Marjorie because Rafael Nadal isn't a great tennis player outside of a clay tennis court. It is not her issue, nor is it her problem. As you can tell by the poll, there is a consensus that Grand Slam tournaments continue to be the standard of excellence in the sport of tennis. Now, continue to cry in your Wheaties everytime a hardcourt tournament approaches. You won't have much to look forward to.

Waaaaaaa....waaaaaaaa......

Serendipitous
05-20-2010, 06:22 PM
Very.......:cry:

T1000
05-20-2010, 06:25 PM
In between two and three. It's a good achievement but the lack of 5 set finals in recent years and 14 of them on clay in a pathetic clay field makes it less impressive.

Mustard
05-20-2010, 07:44 PM
13 of Nadal's masters titles have been on clay, not 14.

CMM
05-21-2010, 12:25 AM
So, don't blame Mother Marjorie because Rafael Nadal isn't a great tennis player outside of a clay tennis court.

http://i47.tinypic.com/10cp2le.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/2s7h09c.jpg
http://i49.tinypic.com/f0b407.jpg

zagor
05-21-2010, 12:52 AM
Au contraire!

Mother Marjorie has simply underscored a narrative which has been amply discussed. If a supermajority of master series tournaments you've won are on one surface, you are super on one surface. When the discussion shifts towards Grand Slam tournaments, the rule continues to apply.

In terms of GOAT, unless you can significantly impact the Grand Slam tournaments on more than one surface, historically you might be less than significant.

So, don't blame Mother Marjorie because Rafael Nadal isn't a great tennis player outside of a clay tennis court. It is not her issue, nor is it her problem. As you can tell by the poll, there is a consensus that Grand Slam tournaments continue to be the standard of excellence in the sport of tennis. Now, continue to cry in your Wheaties everytime a hardcourt tournament approaches. You won't have much to look forward to.

Waaaaaaa....waaaaaaaa......

Hm,you have some pretty damn harsh standards for what constitutes a great player on a specific surface.

Grass-Nadal reached 3 Wimbledon finals in a row winning one.

HC-has won 5 masters title and a slam on that surface(AO)

And all that at a relatively young tennis age so he can certainly still add a lot to those numbers.

dmt
05-21-2010, 12:55 AM
Mother Majorie doesnt have the slightest clue of what she is talking about.

Benhur
05-21-2010, 05:10 AM
Au contraire!

So, don't blame Mother Marjorie because Rafael Nadal isn't a great tennis player outside of a clay tennis court. It is not her issue, nor is it her problem. As you can tell by the poll, there is a consensus that Grand Slam tournaments continue to be the standard of excellence in the sport of tennis.


Mother may wish to back up those claims by naming one player (other than Federer) who has a better record than Nadal on hard courts and grass over the last 5 years.

You know, find someone who has 2 slams on those surfaces, 2 slam runner ups, at least 3 semifinals, 5 master titles on HC, a gold medal, and the closest equivalent to a grass masters (Queen's).

More to the point, find someone in the entire open era, other than Borg and Federer, who has a better lifetime winning percentage than Nadal in slams. Since you insist that slams are the "standard of excellence," this should be a revealing statistic. The order, for your benefit and edification is: 1 Borg. 2 Federer. 3 Nadal. 4 Sampras. 5 Connors. 6 Lendl. 7 McEnroe. 8 Agassi. 9 Becker. 10 Wilander.

You may also wish to add up all hc and grass points earned by Nadal since 2005 and see who (again, other than Federer) comes ahead of him.

In such healthy accounting exercises you may seek to find some modicum of ground on which to stabilize the smoke you are blowing, mother.