PDA

View Full Version : Does some anti clay bias make Rafa's resume seem more 1-dimensional?


kragster
12-22-2011, 01:57 PM
There is no denying that Rafa's skills on clay far surpass those on any other surface. However, I feel that he gets labeled as a one surface wonder even when just what he's done outside of clay should put him in the top 20 all time!

My theory is that part of the reason for this is because prior to Fedal (and except Borg), we had somewhat of a dichotomy in the tennis world -
1) Those who did well everywhere but clay
2) Those who did well ONLY on clay

So clay was almost relegated to the status of this strange surface where 'relatively' unknown dirtballers from South America and Spain would slug it out while the top guns of each era (folks like Mcenroe, becker, edberg, sampras, Connors, Agassi etc) would battle it out else where.

Perhaps the lack of big names battling it out on clay turned off tennis viewers a bit and subconsciously folks placed less importance to RG wins. I remember that as an Edberg fan and then later a Sampras fan, I pretty much paid very little attention to the FO (until Kuerten came along).

So my theory is that if you flipped Nadal's resume to this

6 Wimby's
2 FO (+ 3 Finals)
1 AO
1 USO

then people would give him more credit as an all-rounder just because to a lot of folks 6 Wimby's sounds better than 6 FO's. Even though that would be the exact same resume (balance wise).

SLD76
12-22-2011, 02:06 PM
No, then people will say he was an all time great, but a beast on grass.

Nadal is not discounted because he is supreme on clay.
He is a great great champion, but results show that he is the most consistent on clay.
Only in 2010-11, has he regularly made finals outside of clay

he is still yet to defend a title not won on clay.

He is an all surface champ, but his greatest strength is clay

FlashFlare11
12-22-2011, 02:10 PM
I don't think it's "anti-clay bias." I'm a Federer fan and pay very close attention to the clay season, as do most avid tennis fans. Perhaps Nadal would be better regarded if he won 6 Wimbledons instead. We'll never know. But, who is Nadal almost always compared to? Federer's 6 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 4 Australian Opens, and 1 French look much better than 2, 1, 1, and 6. Of course, Federer has 6 more overall slams, but it still looks more well-rounded.

Traditionally, playing on clay is so far removed when compared to the other two surfaces. Clay-courters have historically had a lot of trouble on grass and hard courts. Generally, if you were successful on grass, you were also fairly successful on hard courts also because your game didn't need as much adaptation.

All credit to Nadal though for winning slams on hard and grass!

PS: I personally believe Roland Garros to be the second-most prestigious slam after Wimbledon.

sunof tennis
12-22-2011, 02:12 PM
There is no denying that Rafa's skills on clay far surpass those on any other surface. However, I feel that he gets labeled as a one surface wonder even when just what he's done outside of clay should put him in the top 20 all time!

My theory is that part of the reason for this is because prior to Fedal (and except Borg), we had somewhat of a dichotomy in the tennis world -
1) Those who did well everywhere but clay
2) Those who did well ONLY on clay

So clay was almost relegated to the status of this strange surface where 'relatively' unknown dirtballers from South America and Spain would slug it out while the top guns of each era (folks like Mcenroe, becker, edberg, sampras, Connors, Agassi etc) would battle it out else where.

Perhaps the lack of big names battling it out on clay turned off tennis viewers a bit and subconsciously folks placed less importance to RG wins. I remember that as an Edberg fan and then later a Sampras fan, I pretty much paid very little attention to the FO (until Kuerten came along).

So my theory is that if you flipped Nadal's resume to this

6 Wimby's
2 FO (+ 3 Finals)
1 AO
1 USO

then people would give him more credit as an all-rounder just because to a lot of folks 6 Wimby's sounds better than 6 FO's. Even though that would be the exact same resume (balance wise).

I think you may have a point, especially in the US. Traditionally, the US has favored hard serving, with big forehands or serve and volley tennis which is obviously suited more to fast hard courts or grass than clay. Also, before the advent of the new racquets and strings, tennis on clay was, at least for me, fairly boring, because the points were so long and usually won on errors rather than winners because it was so hard to put the ball away. I do think that there is some anti-clay bias here. In other parts of the world, no.

tacou
12-22-2011, 02:13 PM
No, then people will say he was an all time great, but a beast on grass.

Nadal is not discounted because he is supreme on clay.
He is a great great champion, but results show that he is the most consistent on clay.
Only in 2010-11, has he regularly made finals outside of clay

he is still yet to defend a title not won on clay.

He is an all surface champ, but his greatest strength is clay

not so sure about this, how often do you hear "half of Sampras' titles were on grass" vs. "more than half of Nadal's titles are on clay"

BeHappy
12-22-2011, 02:17 PM
Great players of the 60's did well on everything (Laver, Roche, Rosewall)

70's you had Borg, Vilas won the AO on grass too

80's you have Lendl and Wilander but although they both won on the grass of the Australian Open they couldn't win at Wimbledon, although Lendl got to two finals and McEnroe got to one French Open final.

The 90's was were it got ridiculous, although you did have Agassi winning on everything, and Courier getting to one Wimbledon final, there were a whole host of surface specialists.

Into the 2000's and Nadal really was a stereotypicalspecialist clay courter for most of his career, he really fluked his way to that 2007 Wimbledon final. It was only in 2008 when he stopped losing to journeymen (and spectacularly so!), although I feel his claycourt game has never reached his old level again.

So really, I think that it's fair to say that Nadal's wins have been very one dimensional so far, but he's very rapidly started fixing that in the last few years.

OddJack
12-22-2011, 02:26 PM
Interesting thought and I agree that

6 Wimby's
2 FO (+ 3 Finals)
1 AO
1 USO

Looks better than what he has now.

Why? For me because Clay is more brawn than brain. It's your power and stamina that wins the dirt and less your skills.

Look at Sod who both his GS finals were on clay. What's the guy known for? Drop shots? half volleys? Variety?
Power.

It's true, as much as Nadalites will hate to admit. Clay is where Nadal's bulging muscles can do the most damage.

And that's why I believe THIS djoker would not have beaten him in 2008 or 2010.

nadalwon2012
12-22-2011, 02:27 PM
Nadal is unlucky that only one of the 4 slams are played on clay. Imagine if 2 of the 4 slams were on clay, as is the current situation with hardcourt....and when Laver won the Calendar Year Grand Slam 2 years in a row none of those 8 slam victories were on hardcourt. 2 of them were on clay and 6 of them were on grass. Over the long history of tennis, hardcourt is the greatest imposter.

fed_rulz
12-22-2011, 02:31 PM
Interesting thought and I agree that

6 Wimby's
2 FO (+ 3 Finals)
1 AO
1 USO

Looks better than what he has now.

Why? For me because Clay is more brawn than brain. It's your power and stamina that wins the dirt and less your skills.

Look at Sod who both his GS finals were on clay. What's the guy known for? Drop shots? half volleys? Variety?
Power.

It's true, as much as Nadalites will hate to admit. Clay is where Nadal's bulging muscles can do the most damage.

And that's why I believe THIS djoker would not have beaten him in 2008 or 2010.

C'mon, If clay is all brawn, then what would you call the grass of the 90s? You really think Ivanisevic was using a lot of brain power when he was serving bombs at wimbledon in the 90s?

SLD76
12-22-2011, 02:38 PM
not so sure about this, how often do you hear "half of Sampras' titles were on grass" vs. "more than half of Nadal's titles are on clay"

again, sampras has what, 3-4 USO?

if sampras had say 8 W, and one each of USO or AO, it may the case of calling him a grass beast.

as it is, he is regarded as a fast court specialist who did not have the game for clay.

OddJack
12-22-2011, 02:42 PM
C'mon, If clay is all brawn, then what would you call the grass of the 90s? You really think Ivanisevic was using a lot of brain power when he was serving bombs at wimbledon in the 90s?

First, I didnt say its "all brawn". It's obviously not.

Second, A good serves takes more skills than it takes muscle power. If you drop so many bombs you either shoot from atop of a tree (Isner) or very skillfull.
How come Nadal cant drop bombs?

FlashFlare11
12-22-2011, 02:45 PM
Nadal is unlucky that only one of the 4 slams are played on clay. Imagine if 2 of the 4 slams were on clay, as is the current situation with hardcourt....and when Laver won the Calendar Year Grand Slam 2 years in a row none of those 8 slam victories were on hardcourt. 2 of them were on clay and 6 of them were on grass. Over the long history of tennis, hardcourt is the greatest imposter.

Nadal is not "unlucky" that 2 of the 4 slams are played on hard court. It is his and his coach's fault for developing a playing style that is most potent on one surface when knowing that hard courts dominate the tour. The player is supposed to adapt to the tour and conditions, not the other way around. Hard court is not a pretender, it is the equalizer.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-22-2011, 02:52 PM
You have to admit, Wimbledon is generally regarded as more prestigious that FO. That's the only reason 6 W > 6 FO.

kragster
12-22-2011, 02:56 PM
Nadal is unlucky that only one of the 4 slams are played on clay. Imagine if 2 of the 4 slams were on clay, as is the current situation with hardcourt....and when Laver won the Calendar Year Grand Slam 2 years in a row none of those 8 slam victories were on hardcourt. 2 of them were on clay and 6 of them were on grass. Over the long history of tennis, hardcourt is the greatest imposter.

I think that as the mix of surfaces changes in the calendar year, the competition on those surfaces changes proportionally to adapt. The only case where that doesn't work is if there is an abrupt change in surfaces and the competition doesn't have the time to adapt.

For example, right now hard courts are 2/3 of the season. Hence more people practice on HC, hence competition is better on HC. Thus the larger number of opportunities is compensated for by the fact that each opportunity is harder to convert. However if tomorrow they decided to make 3 slams grass, then you will suddenly see a disproportionate number of big servers in the top 10.

Mathematically:

Number of Clay Slams won (x) = Probability of winning Clay Slam (p)* Number of Clay Slam opportunities (N) = pN

Since we have twice the number of HC slams but each slam has twice the competition

Number of HC slams won (y) = Probability of winning Hard court Slam (0.5p) * Number of HC slams (2N) = 0.5p*2N = pN

So basically it kind of works out to be the same!

fed_rulz
12-22-2011, 02:59 PM
First, I didnt say its "all brawn". It's obviously not.

Second, A good serves takes more skills than it takes muscle power. If you drop so many bombs you either shoot from atop of a tree (Isner) or very skillfull.
How come Nadal cant drop bombs?

And that's about it -- if you have good serving skills (esp. on 90s grass), you really don't need to be as skillful as you need to be on clay to win points.

tell me which surface required more "point construction" -- is it clay or the grass of 90s? My point was there wasn't a whole lot of brain power involved in the serving contests of the 90s; it requires more brain power (point construction) on clay than brawn. Someone like Nadal is blessed with both.

pound cat
12-22-2011, 03:00 PM
Nadal is not "unlucky" that 2 of the 4 slams are played on hard court. It is his and his coach's fault for developing a playing style that is most potent on one surface when knowing that hard courts dominate the tour. The player is supposed to adapt to the tour and conditions, not the other way around. Hard court is not a pretender, it is the equalizer.

Unfortunately for Nadal his one and only coach knew clay. But the fact that Nadal hs won tennis on the 3 other surfaces says

Uncle Toni studied the other surfaces and coached Nadal how to play on them.

Or

Nadal's innate tennis skills, athleticism, aptitude, and determination allow him to excel on all surfaces even though he may favour one.

Nadal is multi - dimensional not only in tennis but also in other sports such as Golf and Soccer.

Either scenario is sheer brilliance.

DeShaun
12-22-2011, 03:02 PM
I suppose that the racquet skills needed for playing attacking tennis at the very highest level are more difficult to attain than those skills needed for playing upper eschelon-defensive tennis, and therein may lie the bias against the dirtballers who are in great physical shape and who play smart, patient tennis but are, perhaps as a group, not as technically skilled with a racquet as their attacking counterparts.

kragster
12-22-2011, 03:03 PM
Interesting thought and I agree that

6 Wimby's
2 FO (+ 3 Finals)
1 AO
1 USO

Looks better than what he has now.

Why? For me because Clay is more brawn than brain. It's your power and stamina that wins the dirt and less your skills.

Look at Sod who both his GS finals were on clay. What's the guy known for? Drop shots? half volleys? Variety?
Power.

It's true, as much as Nadalites will hate to admit. Clay is where Nadal's bulging muscles can do the most damage.

And that's why I believe THIS djoker would not have beaten him in 2008 or 2010.

I think you are entitled to feel that way but its a little naive to dismiss clay court tennis as a game decided by stamina. I think there are lots of better athletes than Nadal who haven't won on clay. I think clay is about point construction and willingness to deal small blows rather than going for the knockout. It's like Rocky vs Apollo Creed (you keep taking punches until you find a good opportunity and then go for a punch).

I think you should check the unforced error % for clay vs HC. IF it is very significantly higher, then you may have a point. But I don't believe it is.

Also I think the very definition of a 'sport' is that things like endurance and power come into play. That's why so many people dismiss golf!

FlashFlare11
12-22-2011, 03:04 PM
Unfortunately for Nadal his one and only coach knew clay. But the fact that Nadal hs won tennis on the 3 other surfaces says

Uncle Toni studied the other surfaces and coached Nadal how to play on them.

Or

Nadal's innate tennis skills, athleticism, aptitude, and determination allow him to excel on all surfaces even though he may favour one.

Either scenario is sheer brilliance.

I agree fully. I just totally disagree with the notion that Nadal's relative lackluster results on hard courts couldn't be helped. It was fully in his or Toni's control on how to develop Nadal's game. They chose to make it more suitable to clay than hard, and that is why Nadal isn't as successful on the surface. Nothing about it was out of Nadal or Toni's control.

pound cat
12-22-2011, 03:25 PM
I agree fully. I just totally disagree with the notion that Nadal's relative lackluster results on hard courts couldn't be helped. It was fully in his or Toni's control on how to develop Nadal's game. They chose to make it more suitable to clay than hard, and that is why Nadal isn't as successful on the surface. Nothing about it was out of Nadal or Toni's control.

They both grew up in Majorca...and all they know is clay...you go with what you know. But when you play pro tennis you learn to accomodate your tennis to whatever the ATP tournaments play on which players have learned ot do. No such things as clay court specialists anymore. They are all multidimensional, and good players succeed on any surface.

fed_rulz
12-22-2011, 03:30 PM
I suppose that the racquet skills needed for playing attacking tennis at the very highest level are more difficult to attain than those skills needed for playing upper eschelon-defensive tennis, and therein may lie the bias against the dirtballers who are in great physical shape and who play smart, patient tennis but are, perhaps as a group, not as technically skilled with a racquet as their attacking counterparts.

I agree with you overall, but the 90s servefests disproves your generalization? there was rarely any display of skill that "wowed" the public, that the grass and balls were changed to make the game more palatable to the general public.

But yes, in general, grass court tennis required a lot of skill before and after the 90s decade.

TMF
12-22-2011, 03:46 PM
So my theory is that if you flipped Nadal's resume to this

6 Wimby's
2 FO (+ 3 Finals)
1 AO
1 USO

then people would give him more credit as an all-rounder just because to a lot of folks 6 Wimby's sounds better than 6 FO's. Even though that would be the exact same resume (balance wise).

Nadal won like 90% on clay including 14 MS, never defend non-clay title, hold a record of 81 straight win on clay. I think you should convert everything he's done on clay to grass too, not just slam titles.

ultradr
12-22-2011, 03:50 PM
ALL of current top players are 1-dimensional period: You have to be good
at your baseline game.

Clarky21
12-22-2011, 04:59 PM
ALL of current top players are 1-dimensional period: You have to be good
at your baseline game.


You better hold onto your a** because the I can feel the earth moving from the stampede of *******s that are going to bombard you for this comment. :shock:

OddJack
12-22-2011, 05:01 PM
Duplicate, deleted.

OddJack
12-22-2011, 05:02 PM
And that's about it -- if you have good serving skills (esp. on 90s grass), you really don't need to be as skillful as you need to be on clay to win points.

tell me which surface required more "point construction" -- is it clay or the grass of 90s? My point was there wasn't a whole lot of brain power involved in the serving contests of the 90s; it requires more brain power (point construction) on clay than brawn. Someone like Nadal is blessed with both.

I think you are entitled to feel that way but its a little naive to dismiss clay court tennis as a game decided by stamina. I think there are lots of better athletes than Nadal who haven't won on clay. I think clay is about point construction and willingness to deal small blows rather than going for the knockout. It's like Rocky vs Apollo Creed (you keep taking punches until you find a good opportunity and then go for a punch).

I think you should check the unforced error % for clay vs HC. IF it is very significantly higher, then you may have a point. But I don't believe it is.

Also I think the very definition of a 'sport' is that things like endurance and power come into play. That's why so many people dismiss golf!

C'mon, If clay is all brawn, then what would you call the grass of the 90s? You really think Ivanisevic was using a lot of brain power when he was serving bombs at wimbledon in the 90s?

I believe you both are biased, hence your comments regarding the way you throw this " point construction" into the mix.

You both assume simply because the rallies are longer on clay then there got to be more "point construction" involved. As if serve and volley, a two strike point, is not point construction.

If you, for a moment, remove this bias eyeglasses that blur you vision, you will note that, point construction is key in all three surfaces but what makes clay different, obviously, is the speed of the court and that where more power and spin behind the ball makes all the difference. I can show you numerous of what you call " Point Construcion" by Nadal in all three surfaces and they all look the same, and you know what it is.

What you really want to believe is that "Rallies are longer, therefore there is more point construction" but what you are really looking at is the same point construction repeated 2-3 times more for a point, that would be shorter on any other surface for the same point.

It is naive to believe Nadal is winning caly because of point construction, unless you want to factor in his muscle power and strong legs into this "point construction".

kishnabe
12-22-2011, 05:27 PM
I don't think his resume is one dimensional. After reaching his 2nd Wimbledon final in 2007..... all thought of him being just a clay courter was demolished. 2006 seemed like a fluke....!

Adding 2 Wimbledons, Australian and US open changed all that. He did way better than any other clay court specialist who won RG!

Clay lover
12-22-2011, 06:20 PM
I think more people are biased against Nadal than they are biased against clay.

Mustard
12-22-2011, 06:31 PM
80's you have Lendl and Wilander but although they both won on the grass of the Australian Open they couldn't win at Wimbledon

Both of Lendl's Australian Open titles were on Rebound Ace hardcourt.

Crisstti
12-22-2011, 06:48 PM
not so sure about this, how often do you hear "half of Sampras' titles were on grass" vs. "more than half of Nadal's titles are on clay"

I don't think anyone other than Rafa "hating" Fed fans ever say that ;).

C'mon, If clay is all brawn, then what would you call the grass of the 90s? You really think Ivanisevic was using a lot of brain power when he was serving bombs at wimbledon in the 90s?

This.

again, sampras has what, 3-4 USO?

if sampras had say 8 W, and one each of USO or AO, it may the case of calling him a grass beast.

as it is, he is regarded as a fast court specialist who did not have the game for clay.

Well, Rafa has the game for every surface (for some more than for others, of course).

I think you are entitled to feel that way but its a little naive to dismiss clay court tennis as a game decided by stamina. I think there are lots of better athletes than Nadal who haven't won on clay. I think clay is about point construction and willingness to deal small blows rather than going for the knockout. It's like Rocky vs Apollo Creed (you keep taking punches until you find a good opportunity and then go for a punch).

I think you should check the unforced error % for clay vs HC. IF it is very significantly higher, then you may have a point. But I don't believe it is.

Also I think the very definition of a 'sport' is that things like endurance and power come into play. That's why so many people dismiss golf!

This.

I agree fully. I just totally disagree with the notion that Nadal's relative lackluster results on hard courts couldn't be helped. It was fully in his or Toni's control on how to develop Nadal's game. They chose to make it more suitable to clay than hard, and that is why Nadal isn't as successful on the surface. Nothing about it was out of Nadal or Toni's control.

I don't think a player can control that sort of thing to such a degree. Especially if they grew up playing on a certain surface.

FlashFlare11
12-22-2011, 06:59 PM
I don't think a player can control that sort of this to such a degree. Especially if they grew up playing on a certain surface.

Perhaps in other cases, this may be out of a player's control. But look at how unorthodox Nadal's game is. His game takes the clay advantage to a competely different level. His game isn't even natural for him. That Toni and Rafael went so out of their way to develop such a game shows that they weren't totally thinking of the entire tour. Nadal's success on hard courts is a testament to his talent and sheer determination, but the style of play he was brought up on was and will probably continue to be more of a detriment on hard courts than an advantage.

OddJack
12-22-2011, 07:22 PM
Interesting thought and I agree that

6 Wimby's
2 FO (+ 3 Finals)
1 AO
1 USO

Looks better than what he has now.

Why? For me because Clay is more brawn than brain. It's your power and stamina that wins the dirt and less your skills.

Look at Sod who both his GS finals were on clay. What's the guy known for? Drop shots? half volleys? Variety?
Power.

It's true, as much as Nadalites will hate to admit. Clay is where Nadal's bulging muscles can do the most damage.

And that's why I believe THIS djoker would not have beaten him in 2008 or 2010.

This

I believe you both are biased, hence your comments regarding the way you throw this " point construction" into the mix.

You both assume simply because the rallies are longer on clay then there got to be more "point construction" involved. As if serve and volley, a two strike point, is not point construction.

If you, for a moment, remove this bias eyeglasses that blur you vision, you will note that, point construction is key in all three surfaces but what makes clay different, obviously, is the speed of the court and that where more power and spin behind the ball makes all the difference. I can show you numerous of what you call " Point Construcion" by Nadal in all three surfaces and they all look the same, and you know what it is.

What you really want to believe is that "Rallies are longer, therefore there is more point construction" but what you are really looking at is the same point construction repeated 2-3 times more for a point, that would be shorter on any other surface for the same point.

It is naive to believe Nadal is winning caly because of point construction, unless you want to factor in his muscle power and strong legs into this "point construction".

This

fed_rulz
12-22-2011, 07:35 PM
I believe you both are biased, hence your comments regarding the way you throw this " point construction" into the mix.

You both assume simply because the rallies are longer on clay then there got to be more "point construction" involved. As if serve and volley, a two strike point, is not point construction.

If you, for a moment, remove this bias eyeglasses that blur you vision, you will note that, point construction is key in all three surfaces but what makes clay different, obviously, is the speed of the court and that where more power and spin behind the ball makes all the difference. I can show you numerous of what you call " Point Construcion" by Nadal in all three surfaces and they all look the same, and you know what it is.

What you really want to believe is that "Rallies are longer, therefore there is more point construction" but what you are really looking at is the same point construction repeated 2-3 times more for a point, that would be shorter on any other surface for the same point.

It is naive to believe Nadal is winning caly because of point construction, unless you want to factor in his muscle power and strong legs into this "point construction".

1. reg bias -- the same thing applies to you as well.
2. I really don't see any point construction in serve fests. Grass court tennis pre-90s & post 2000s did require "point construction", but you are on thin ice if you want to argue that one/two-shot tennis is all about point construction.
3. Why do you bring in Nadal? I never said Nadal was winning it solely due to point construction; you made a comment about clay court tennis in general.
4. You admit it was point construction 2-3 times over in clay courts. Even if the strategy is the same (and this applies only to Nadal), you cannot really generalize that all clay courters have just one strategy that they use over and over again.

I think you need to follow your own advice and remove your tinted glasses.

nadalwon2012
12-22-2011, 09:15 PM
Nadal is the GOAT of clay (and the defending RG champion) having won 78 of his 79 best-of-5 set matches on clay and 6 Roland Garros titles. Surely nobody expects him to be GOAT of another surface. 2 Wimbledons and a great chance at more (having made the 2011 Wimbledon final), and winning the AO and USO and making the last 2 USO finals. And did I mention he's only 25? He's making grass and hardcourt slam finals in the current calendar year, bound to win more of those slams. Good luck finding negatives in that record....

sbengte
12-22-2011, 09:23 PM
Nadal is not "unlucky" that 2 of the 4 slams are played on hard court. It is his and his coach's fault for developing a playing style that is most potent on one surface when knowing that hard courts dominate the tour. The player is supposed to adapt to the tour and conditions, not the other way around. Hard court is not a pretender, it is the equalizer.

Which world do you live in ? The Universal law of Tio states that the tour and the conditions are supposed to adapt to Ralph , as in more clay court tournaments, easier schedule, two year ranking system etc

namelessone
12-22-2011, 09:33 PM
Interesting thought and I agree that

6 Wimby's
2 FO (+ 3 Finals)
1 AO
1 USO

Looks better than what he has now.

Why? For me because Clay is more brawn than brain. It's your power and stamina that wins the dirt and less your skills.

Look at Sod who both his GS finals were on clay. What's the guy known for? Drop shots? half volleys? Variety?
Power.

It's true, as much as Nadalites will hate to admit. Clay is where Nadal's bulging muscles can do the most damage.

And that's why I believe THIS djoker would not have beaten him in 2008 or 2010.

This is pretty funny.

Do you think the ballbashing that goes on HC requires some higher brain power? Or servefests on grass(old grass)?

Soderling made finals in RG because he has powerful strokes that can hit through the court even on clay and RG has gotten faster over the years. Soderling was also one match away from making SF in USO and WB, does this say something about those courts as well?

Coming back to clay, it's actually one of the few surfaces that forces you to think about moving your opponent around while gauging your own fatigue level. I'm not the first to call it chess on a tennis court but that's what it looks like many times. On traditional clay it's almost impossible to hit through your opponent so you have to plan things a bit.

And there is no anticlay bias outside of US. Only USA treats clay as a second rate surface(heck, roddick skips most european clay events and it is a wonder when he lasts more than 2-3 rounds in RG) and that's because it had 2-3 players that did any good on this surface in the last 20 years. Considering the fact that USA dominated the last 2 decades in tennis overall, this "anticlay" bit came into focus more(especially with Sampras's bad results in RG) but it is still empty rhetoric for anyone that knows the history of the game.

nadalwon2012
12-22-2011, 09:34 PM
There is no doubt, the big-serving surfaces require less tactical knowledge than clay. Grass too, considering its all about big serves and big returns. Clay is all about point construction without blasting clean winners or aces.

namelessone
12-22-2011, 09:35 PM
I think more people are biased against Nadal than they are biased against clay.

And we have a winner.

nadalwon2012
12-22-2011, 09:37 PM
I think more people are biased against Nadal than they are biased against clay.

It's probably all about the American fans then, or British, both of whom never have success on clay with their guys (except for Murray in 2011 and America no success since Agassi in 1999 lol).

namelessone
12-22-2011, 09:39 PM
You have to admit, Wimbledon is generally regarded as more prestigious that FO. That's the only reason 6 W > 6 FO.

Wimbledon is regarded as the most prestigious event in tennis, not just against RG. Nothing can compare to it.

A better discussion would be RG versus AO versus USO.

namelessone
12-22-2011, 09:44 PM
Nadal is not "unlucky" that 2 of the 4 slams are played on hard court. It is his and his coach's fault for developing a playing style that is most potent on one surface when knowing that hard courts dominate the tour. The player is supposed to adapt to the tour and conditions, not the other way around. Hard court is not a pretender, it is the equalizer.

So tennis had no equalizer until the mid 1980's despite being played since 1870's? :)

Poor tennis... :(

If you wanna talk about a equalizer, let's talk about clay. It basically takes ballbashing and big serving out of the equation and turns it into a strictly baseline battle.

nadalwon2012
12-22-2011, 09:47 PM
Hardcourt is an equalizer, it allows the tactically not so smart players to do better than they would on clay. Although its not good for tennis to give the dumb players an easy way out. The guys that grew up on clay are generally the more intelligent players on tour. Everybody should get their game working on clay, because it improves them as thinking tennis players.

FlashFlare11
12-22-2011, 09:53 PM
So tennis had no equalizer until the mid 1980's despite being played since 1870's? :)

Poor tennis... :(

If you wanna talk about a equalizer, let's talk about clay. It basically takes ballbashing and big serving out of the equation and turns it into a strictly baseline battle.

Hard court plays faster than clay and slower than traditional Wimbledon grass. The serve is much more neutralized on hard than on grass, though not as much as on clay. You can hang around or behind the baseline all day, but you can see how well that has worked for certain players. Serve-and-volley isn't as effective either. You need all these parts to do well on hard. In other words, you need variety.

nadalwon2012
12-22-2011, 09:58 PM
You only need a big serve and big forehand to do well on hardcourt, actually. See Berdych (a renowned unintelligent player I might add).

Talker
12-22-2011, 10:02 PM
Nadal's resume is filled with other clay titles besides slams so he does look 1D pretty much.

Some slams may be more prestigious to some like Wimbledon but the French Open is very special also in what it takes to win there.
I personally admire that kind of physical challenge.

nadalwon2012
12-22-2011, 10:04 PM
Federer's masters shields look one dimensional, nearly all of them are on hardcourt. Nadal has some Indian Wells titles don't forget.

FlashFlare11
12-22-2011, 10:05 PM
Federer's masters shields look one dimensional, nearly all of them are on hardcourt. Nadal has some Indian Wells titles don't forget.

Federer has clay Masters titles as well. He would probably have more if there was a grass Masters.

nadalwon2012
12-22-2011, 10:09 PM
Federer has clay Masters titles as well. He would probably have more if there was a grass Masters.

Not many. It's even, except Nadal has more masters shields and on the way to about 25 or 30 of them if his clay dominance continues. Nadal racked his up with clay, and Federer racked his up with hardcourt.

FlashFlare11
12-22-2011, 10:19 PM
Not many. It's even, except Nadal has more masters shields and on the way to about 25 or 30 of them if his clay dominance continues. Nadal racked his up with clay, and Federer racked his up with hardcourt.

Nadal getting to 30 Masters titles? There are 3 clay Masters events a year. This means Nadal would have to win every clay Masters event for the next 9 years and even then he'd only be at 28.

TTMR
12-22-2011, 10:22 PM
I think more people are biased against Nadal than they are biased against clay.

Maybe, but clay is a third rate surface anyway*. Only animals slop around in the dirt.


*2009 excepted

MariaRafael
12-22-2011, 10:34 PM
I feel that he gets labeled as a one surface wonder even when just what he's done outside of clay should put him in the top 20 all time!

My theory is that part of the reason for this is because prior to Fedal (and except Borg), we had somewhat of a dichotomy in the tennis world -
1) Those who did well everywhere but clay
2) Those who did well ONLY on clay

So clay was almost relegated to the status of this strange surface where 'relatively' unknown dirtballers from South America and Spain would slug it out while the top guns of each era (folks like Mcenroe, becker, edberg, sampras, Connors, Agassi etc) would battle it out else where.

Perhaps the lack of big names battling it out on clay turned off tennis viewers a bit and subconsciously folks placed less importance to RG wins.

Nadal is not labeled as a one-surface wonder outside this highly prejudiced and very American forum.

Here's a list of players who won RG and another slam within one year (the list of players winning RG and another slam during their careers will be longer than life):

1924 Jean Borotra RG+W
1925 Rene Lacoste RG+W
1927 Rene Lacoste RG+USO
1928 Henri Cochet RG+USO
1933 Jack Crawford RG+W+AO
1935 Fred Perry RG+W
1936 Don Budge RG+W+USO+AO
1950 Budge Patty RG+W
1953 Ken Rosewall RG+AO
1955 Tony Trabert RG+W+USO
1956 Lew Hoad RG+W+AO
1962 Rod Laver RG+W+USO+AO
1963 Roy Emerson RG+AO
1967 Roy Emerson RG+AO
1969 Rod Laver RG+W+USO+AO
1977 Guillermo Vilas RG+USO
1978 Bjorn Borg RG+W
1979 Bjorn Borg RG+W
1980 Bjorn Borg RG+W
1986 Ivan Lendl RG+USO
1987 Ivan Lendl RG+USO
1988 Mats Wilander RG+AO+USO
1992 Jim Courier RG+AO
1999 Andre Agassi RG+USO
2008 Rafael Nadal RG+W
2009 Roger Federer RG+W
2010 Rafael Nadal RG+W+USO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men's_singles_champions#Champio ns_by_year

Maybe these dirtballers are relatively unknown to you, I've heard about all of them. And very few of them are from South America or Spain. To be more exact:
France – 3
Australia – 5
Britain – 1
USA – 6
Argentina – 1
Sweden – 2
Checkoslovakia - 1
Spain – 1
Switzerland - 1

I don't know what you mean by "big names". For me all the names on my list are big enough to be respected.

If you break down RG wins countrywise, the result is:

Britain - 2
France – 37
Germany – 3
Australia – 9
Hungary – 1
USA – 11
Egypt – 2
Sweden – 10
Italy – 3
Spain – 14
Czechoslovakia – 5
Romania – 1
Argentina – 2
Ecuador – 1
Austria – 1
Russia – 1
Brasil – 3
Switzerland – 1

which can also be presented as

Europe (without Spain): 65
USA: 11
Spain: 14
South America: 6

Hence, the vast majority of unknown dirtballers are non-Spanish Europeans. Spain minus Rafa Nadal who is relatively well-known even in the USA produced 8 RG wins which is fewer than the USA, Sweden, Australia and France.

And the last but not the least, I don't understand how Guillermo Vilas, Manuel Santana, Sergi Bruguera, Carlos Moya, Juan Carlos Ferrero can be described as "relatively unknown". Next time you say something like that, please, specify "relatively unknown in the USA".

MariaRafael
12-22-2011, 11:07 PM
Nadal getting to 30 Masters titles? There are 3 clay Masters events a year. This means Nadal would have to win every clay Masters event for the next 9 years and even then he'd only be at 28.

It's a pity that you haven't heard about him winning Indian Wells twice, Canadian Open twice, Madrid Masters once when it was played on indoor hard. He also was Miami Masters runnerup 3 times. So he doesn't have to reduce his ambitions to clay masters only.

Federer has only 4 master shields and only one slam title on clay. Nadal has 5 master shields and 2 slam titles on hard which means that Nadal does better on hard than Federer on clay.

FlashFlare11
12-22-2011, 11:16 PM
It's a pity that you haven't heard about him winning Indian Wells twice, Canadian Open twice, Madrid Masters once when it was played on indoor hard. He also was Miami Masters runnerup 3 times. So he doesn't have to reduce his ambitions to clay masters only.

Federer has only 4 master shields and only one slam title on clay. Nadal has 5 master shields and 2 slam titles on hard which means that Nadal does better on hard than Federer on clay.

That is five masters on hard court for Nadal compared to Federer's four on clay. Federer also has numerous runner-ups at multiple clay masters. However, there are twice as many hard court masters as there are clay and twice as many slams played on hard than clay. They have similar numbers even though Nadal has twice as many opportunities a year to win titles on hard as Federer does on clay.

And according to Nadalwon2012, Nadal simply needs to continue his clay domination to reach 25-30.

nadalwon2012
12-22-2011, 11:58 PM
Nadal getting to 30 Masters titles? There are 3 clay Masters events a year. This means Nadal would have to win every clay Masters event for the next 9 years and even then he'd only be at 28.

Nadal will be deeply driven by the 2016 clay Olympics.

Andres
12-23-2011, 01:31 AM
Nadal getting to 30 Masters titles? There are 3 clay Masters events a year. This means Nadal would have to win every clay Masters event for the next 9 years and even then he'd only be at 28.
I don't know what kind of math you did, but if he wins every clay Masters for the next 9 years, he would add 27 shields to his already 19, so he'd be at 46 M1000s.

To reach 25, he needs 3 more years of two 1000s a year. Sounds perfectly plausible to me.

mattennis
12-23-2011, 01:41 AM
Why do so many people state incorrect things in this thread?

Someone said Lendl won Australian Open on grass, but he didn't. (His two titles there were on hard court).

Another said Laver won two Calendar Grand Slam in consecutive years, but he didn't.

Now some others saying Federer has won 4 M-1000 on clay, when actually he has won 5.

Anyway....

Different conditions requires different skills.

In general stamina/endurance is more important on clay, whereas a good arsenal of killing shots is more important on grass and fast courts.

Movement is totally different on clay, than on hard court, than on grass.

Every surface has its own characteristics, but making good choices, taking the right decisions on court, is extremely important in EVERY surface you're playing on.

MichaelNadal
12-23-2011, 02:05 AM
I think more people are biased against Nadal than they are biased against clay.

This is a very correct assessment.

zagor
12-23-2011, 02:36 AM
It's a pity that you haven't heard about him winning Indian Wells twice, Canadian Open twice, Madrid Masters once when it was played on indoor hard. He also was Miami Masters runnerup 3 times. So he doesn't have to reduce his ambitions to clay masters only.

Federer has only 4 master shields and only one slam title on clay. Nadal has 5 master shields and 2 slam titles on hard which means that Nadal does better on hard than Federer on clay.

Actually Fed has 5 CC masters tourneys, same number as Nadal does on HC. You also have to consider that there are twice the number of HC masters in a calendar year so Nadal has much more opportunities.

Then again, Nadal may add to his HC masters tally in the future, he's 5 years younger than Fed.

PSNELKE
12-23-2011, 05:21 AM
You have to admit, Wimbledon is generally regarded as more prestigious that FO. That's the only reason 6 W > 6 FO.

True. And FO>USO>AO.
But seriously a Slam is a Slam, 6W wins sounds indeed better than 6 FO wins, but in the major count it is still 6=6.

Also fed_rulz does have a point there.

FlashFlare11
12-23-2011, 05:27 AM
I don't know what kind of math you did, but if he wins every clay Masters for the next 9 years, he would add 27 shields to his already 19, so he'd be at 46 M1000s.

To reach 25, he needs 3 more years of two 1000s a year. Sounds perfectly plausible to me.

Hahahahaha sorry for that. I typed in 9 by mistake. Thanks for the correction!

OddJack
12-23-2011, 06:23 AM
This is pretty funny.

Do you think the ballbashing that goes on HC requires some higher brain power? Or servefests on grass(old grass)?

Soderling made finals in RG because he has powerful strokes that can hit through the court even on clay and RG has gotten faster over the years. Soderling was also one match away from making SF in USO and WB, does this say something about those courts as well?

Coming back to clay, it's actually one of the few surfaces that forces you to think about moving your opponent around while gauging your own fatigue level. I'm not the first to call it chess on a tennis court but that's what it looks like many times. On traditional clay it's almost impossible to hit through your opponent so you have to plan things a bit.

And there is no anticlay bias outside of US. Only USA treats clay as a second rate surface(heck, roddick skips most european clay events and it is a wonder when he lasts more than 2-3 rounds in RG) and that's because it had 2-3 players that did any good on this surface in the last 20 years. Considering the fact that USA dominated the last 2 decades in tennis overall, this "anticlay" bit came into focus more(especially with Sampras's bad results in RG) but it is still empty rhetoric for anyone that knows the history of the game.

Of course clay requires thinking. And that's why Nadal takes so long before each serve, because he is thinking.
And the point about moving your opponent around...LOL oh please, like it's any different in other surfaces? If it was more about thinking, strategy, and tecnique Federer would have won all the RG finals. Who has more veriety in his game? You would be Naive to think Nadal is winning over Federer by thinking on the court.
He is winning by thinking plus a huge muscle + Leg advantage.

How else do you explain so much injuries? You think injuries happen by Thinking??

LOL

You are fooling yourself buddy.

tusharlovesrafa
12-23-2011, 06:25 AM
Of course clay requires thinking. And that's why Nadal takes so long before each serve, because he is thinking.
And the point about moving your opponent around...LOL oh please, like it's any different in other surfaces? If it was more about thinking, strategy, and tecnique Federer would have won all the RG finals. Who has more veriety in his game? You would be Naive to think Nadal is winning over Federer by thinking on the court.
He is winning by thinking plus a huge muscle + Leg advantage.

How else do you explain so much injuries? You think injuries happen by Thinking??

LOL

You are fooling yourself buddy.

I lie,I cheat,I steal To Win!!:twisted:

celoft
12-23-2011, 06:27 AM
Borg's 6 slams on clay and 5 slams outside of clay is better than what Nadal has achieved.

MichaelNadal
12-23-2011, 06:37 AM
Borg's 6 slams on clay and 5 slams outside of clay is better than what Nadal has achieved.

Yep, Rafito needs to win one more slam off clay, could have done it this year if he didn't cower in his boots in the Wimby and USO finals.

Clarky21
12-23-2011, 06:38 AM
Borg's 6 slams on clay and 5 slams outside of clay is better than what Nadal has achieved.

How so? Because he has one more slam outside of clay than Nadal? Not really fair when you consider that Nadal at least won the USO once. Borg never did that after being in the final umpteen times.

Semi-Pro
12-23-2011, 06:44 AM
How so? Because he has one more slam outside of clay than Nadal? Not really fair when you consider that Nadal at least won the USO once. Borg never did that after being in the final umpteen times.

Well Borg won 5 straight Wimbledons so take that into consideration too

celoft
12-23-2011, 06:45 AM
How so? Because he has one more slam outside of clay than Nadal?

Yup! :),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Crisstti
12-23-2011, 07:58 AM
I don't know what kind of math you did, but if he wins every clay Masters for the next 9 years, he would add 27 shields to his already 19, so he'd be at 46 M1000s.

To reach 25, he needs 3 more years of two 1000s a year. Sounds perfectly plausible to me.

Yeah. It's not implausible at all.

Actually Fed has 5 CC masters tourneys, same number as Nadal does on HC. You also have to consider that there are twice the number of HC masters in a calendar year so Nadal has much more opportunities.


That is five masters on hard court for Nadal compared to Federer's four on clay. Federer also has numerous runner-ups at multiple clay masters. However, there are twice as many hard court masters as there are clay and twice as many slams played on hard than clay. They have similar numbers even though Nadal has twice as many opportunities a year to win titles on hard as Federer does on clay.

Which is the same argument some of us have made about the slam count... but when the argument helps Fed...

Of course clay requires thinking. And that's why Nadal takes so long before each serve, because he is thinking.
And the point about moving your opponent around...LOL oh please, like it's any different in other surfaces? If it was more about thinking, strategy, and tecnique Federer would have won all the RG finals. Who has more veriety in his game? You would be Naive to think Nadal is winning over Federer by thinking on the court.
He is winning by thinking plus a huge muscle + Leg advantage.

How else do you explain so much injuries? You think injuries happen by Thinking??

LOL

You are fooling yourself buddy.

What makes you think Fed has an advantage in thinking, strategy there?.

nadalwon2012
12-24-2011, 08:00 PM
Federer has brilliant court movement, and is a great athlete. If Federer wanted to, he could be just as athletic as Nadal. Just that Nadal trains harder, hence the injuries. Federer chose to take it easy and not get injured. Even though Nadal suffers the price of hard work, he will have an edge in his 30s, because his hard work will keep him near the top for longer. He will notice he is in decline and work harder than ever to prevent a big decline. While Federer won't be willing to work hard enough to prevent decline and will fade away.

Clarky21
12-24-2011, 08:21 PM
Federer has brilliant court movement, and is a great athlete. If Federer wanted to, he could be just as athletic as Nadal. Just that Nadal trains harder, hence the injuries. Federer chose to take it easy and not get injured. Even though Nadal suffers the price of hard work, he will have an edge in his 30s, because his hard work will keep him near the top for longer. He will notice he is in decline and work harder than ever to prevent a big decline. While Federer won't be willing to work hard enough to prevent decline and will fade away.



You're nuts. Nadal will not be on the tour by the time he is 28 much less when he is pushing 31.

And Roger is just as athletic as Nadal without having to pound his body to pieces to achieve it. He's much more gifted in not only talent/natural ability,but also with his longevity. His health is better now at over 30 than Nadal's is at 25. What does that tell you?

tusharlovesrafa
12-25-2011, 05:33 AM
You're nuts. Nadal will not be on the tour by the time he is 28 much less when he is pushing 31.

And Roger is just as athletic as Nadal without having to pound his body to pieces to achieve it. He's much more gifted in not only talent/natural ability,but also with his longevity. His health is better now at over 30 than Nadal's is at 25. What does that tell you?

Yeah,I believe you.I think Nadal should retire and let us live in peace..:)

Clarky21
12-25-2011, 07:06 AM
Yeah,I believe you.I think Nadal should retire and let us live in peace..:)


Good. Now you have definitely been "successed". :lol:

tusharlovesrafa
12-25-2011, 08:19 AM
Good. Now you have definitely been "successed". :lol:

I realized that there is no point arguing with you.Sometimes we argue making silly points like what will happen in 2012 or what will happen in future,which is complete foolishness.I have seen people here making threads about 2016 regarding Who will be the Goat then,Who will be clay Goat .They try to predict future achievements,which is logically not possible.We are not sure what may happen tomorrow and how posters here are going GAGA over 2012 and so on.

Sentinel
12-25-2011, 09:20 AM
Federer has brilliant court movement, and is a great athlete. If Federer wanted to, he could be just as athletic as Nadal. Just that Nadal trains harder, hence the injuries. Federer chose to take it easy and not get injured. Even though Nadal suffers the price of hard work, he will have an edge in his 30s, because his hard work will keep him near the top for longer. He will notice he is in decline and work harder than ever to prevent a big decline. While Federer won't be willing to work hard enough to prevent decline and will fade away.
You post is so full of win. Well played sir.

And wish you a very merry XMAS !

FlashFlare11
12-25-2011, 10:53 AM
Federer has brilliant court movement, and is a great athlete. If Federer wanted to, he could be just as athletic as Nadal. Just that Nadal trains harder, hence the injuries. Federer chose to take it easy and not get injured. Even though Nadal suffers the price of hard work, he will have an edge in his 30s, because his hard work will keep him near the top for longer. He will notice he is in decline and work harder than ever to prevent a big decline. While Federer won't be willing to work hard enough to prevent decline and will fade away.

Nadal works harder than Federer? Where's your proof? How can you say that with no evidence? Because Nadal gets injured more often? That's not hard work at motion, that's a result of playing when you know it's going to harm you. I think you were the one who was trying to say clay-courters are smarter than hard courters. Well, you get injured if you try to play on a hard court like it's a clay court. That's what Nadal's problem is; he has yet to realize the difference between hard and clay. Of course, it's easy to do that when all the courts play so similarly these days.

Nadal's "hard work" will not give him the edge at the age of 30. Paul Annacone's work with Federer is allowing him to keep more competitive at the age of 30. Nadal, who has been largely unwilling to change his style of play when he knows it's going to harm him, is going to change just to stay competitive at 30?

Nadal's "hard work" really paid off keeping him at the top in 2009, right?

zagor
12-25-2011, 11:32 AM
Which is the same argument some of us have made about the slam count... but when the argument helps Fed....

Well yes obviously it helps Fed (his slam count) compared to Nadal that 2 slams are on HC. However in most other eras the conditions would have possibly been even worse so Nadal so it's not like it's completely against him.

What makes you think Fed has an advantage in thinking, strategy there?.

Well Nadal's strategy for beating Fed on clay is hardly that cerebral, he wins because of his movement, the action he puts on the ball (that lefy FH to Fed's BH), fitness etc.

Crisstti
12-25-2011, 03:31 PM
Well yes obviously it helps Fed (his slam count) compared to Nadal that 2 slams are on HC. However in most other eras the conditions would have possibly been even worse so Nadal so it's not like it's completely against him.



Well Nadal's strategy for beating Fed on clay is hardly that cerebral, he wins because of his movement, the action he puts on the ball (that lefy FH to Fed's BH), fitness etc.

That doesn't mean though that Fed has an advantage in thinking of strategy.

cc0509
12-25-2011, 04:56 PM
Federer has brilliant court movement, and is a great athlete. If Federer wanted to, he could be just as athletic as Nadal. Just that Nadal trains harder, hence the injuries. Federer chose to take it easy and not get injured. Even though Nadal suffers the price of hard work, he will have an edge in his 30s, because his hard work will keep him near the top for longer. He will notice he is in decline and work harder than ever to prevent a big decline. While Federer won't be willing to work hard enough to prevent decline and will fade away.

What planet are you from exactly? Nadal will not be playing in his 30's. Haven't both Toni and Rafa stated that Rafa does not plan on playing in his 30's?

You don't get it do you, it is Nadal's grinding style of play that will most probably ensure he will not be playing in his 30's. You think he is going to change the whole foundation of his game, the one that has enabled him to win 10 slams? Stop talking nonsense.

And who says Nadal works harder than Federer? I don't think that is the case at all. If anything it looks to me like Nadal has lost some passion for the game and may not want to continue to work as hard whereas Roger seems to enjoy it more even though he is long past his prime.

Clarky21
12-25-2011, 06:09 PM
What planet are you from exactly? Nadal will not be playing in his 30's. Haven't both Toni and Rafa stated that Rafa does not plan on playing in his 30's?

You don't get it do you, it is Nadal's grinding style of play that will most probably ensure he will not be playing in his 30's. You think he is going to change the whole foundation of his game, the one that has enabled him to win 10 slams? Stop talking nonsense.

And who says Nadal works harder than Federer? I don't think that is the case at all. If anything it looks to me like Nadal has lost some passion for the game and may not want to continue to work as hard whereas Roger seems to enjoy it more even though he is long past his prime.


He's a troll. Do you actually expect rational,straight forward thinking from him? Everyone with half a brain at all knows Nadal will be done with tennis by the time he is 27-28 years old. He will not be on the tour when he's 30.

nadalwon2012
12-25-2011, 07:28 PM
Nadal works harder than Federer? Where's your proof? How can you say that with no evidence? Because Nadal gets injured more often? That's not hard work at motion, that's a result of playing when you know it's going to harm you. I think you were the one who was trying to say clay-courters are smarter than hard courters. Well, you get injured if you try to play on a hard court like it's a clay court. That's what Nadal's problem is; he has yet to realize the difference between hard and clay. Of course, it's easy to do that when all the courts play so similarly these days.

Nadal's "hard work" will not give him the edge at the age of 30. Paul Annacone's work with Federer is allowing him to keep more competitive at the age of 30. Nadal, who has been largely unwilling to change his style of play when he knows it's going to harm him, is going to change just to stay competitive at 30?

Nadal's "hard work" really paid off keeping him at the top in 2009, right?

Nadal trains 45mins-90mins on the day of matches. Federer has a 20min hitup. That's what all the commentators say, and they walk the grounds and see who's doing what.

adamX012
12-25-2011, 07:31 PM
There is no denying that Rafa's skills on clay far surpass those on any other surface. However, I feel that he gets labeled as a one surface wonder even when just what he's done outside of clay should put him in the top 20 all time!

My theory is that part of the reason for this is because prior to Fedal (and except Borg), we had somewhat of a dichotomy in the tennis world -
1) Those who did well everywhere but clay
2) Those who did well ONLY on clay

So clay was almost relegated to the status of this strange surface where 'relatively' unknown dirtballers from South America and Spain would slug it out while the top guns of each era (folks like Mcenroe, becker, edberg, sampras, Connors, Agassi etc) would battle it out else where.

Perhaps the lack of big names battling it out on clay turned off tennis viewers a bit and subconsciously folks placed less importance to RG wins. I remember that as an Edberg fan and then later a Sampras fan, I pretty much paid very little attention to the FO (until Kuerten came along).

So my theory is that if you flipped Nadal's resume to this

6 Wimby's
2 FO (+ 3 Finals)
1 AO
1 USO

then people would give him more credit as an all-rounder just because to a lot of folks 6 Wimby's sounds better than 6 FO's. Even though that would be the exact same resume (balance wise).

That's the best thread I found this week. Nadal is a king of clay in this era. Then, who would be the second one? Anyone?

FlashFlare11
12-25-2011, 07:48 PM
Nadal trains 45mins-90mins on the day of matches. Federer has a 20min hitup. That's what all the commentators say, and they walk the grounds and see who's doing what.

Pre-match warm-up isn't training. Training is what you do during your time off to prepare for the upcoming tour events. Pre-match warmup has absolutely no reflection on how hard a player works in their time off actually woorking on their fitness and their games.

cc0509
12-25-2011, 08:02 PM
He's a troll. Do you actually expect rational,straight forward thinking from him? Everyone with half a brain at all knows Nadal will be done with tennis by the time he is 27-28 years old. He will not be on the tour when he's 30.

A lot of delusional souls out there. I think he also said Federer would play until 40 or he said something close to that. Yeah, right! :)

MariaRafael
12-25-2011, 11:05 PM
That's what Nadal's problem is; he has yet to realize the difference between hard and clay.

Of course, he doesn't realize it. He won only 2 slams and 5 meagre masters on hard. Shame on nadal, a humble club player. He should learn something from you.

MariaRafael
12-26-2011, 01:51 AM
Yeah,I believe you.I think Nadal should retire and let us live in peace..:)

Together with Federer, Djokovic and especially Murray who are actively bashed in this forum from time to time, except Murray who is bashed all the time.

Then ugly male population will start finding problems with Feliciano Lopes, Fernando Verdasco, Juan Monaco, Fabio Fognini, Simone Bolleli and other good-looking players, and the latter will have to skip the town.

The only way to keep haters happy is to admit to ATP only ugly penniless guys who's tennis-playing ability doesn't exceed that of a 3-year old.

Sentinel
12-26-2011, 04:49 AM
Together with Federer, Djokovic and especially Murray who are actively bashed in this forum from time to time, except Murray who is bashed all the time.

Then ugly male population will start finding problems with Feliciano Lopes, Fernando Verdasco, Juan Monaco, Fabio Fognini, Simone Bolleli and other good-looking players, and the latter will have to skip the town.

The only way to keep haters happy is to admit to ATP only ugly penniless guys who's tennis-playing ability doesn't exceed that of a 3-year old.
You are so witty, my dear. You and nadalwon2012 are my favorite posters.

btw, check out Stepanek, he's hot, too. ;)

DRII
12-26-2011, 06:50 AM
It's probably all about the American fans then, or British, both of whom never have success on clay with their guys (except for Murray in 2011 and America no success since Agassi in 1999 lol).

Your America bashing and/or generalizations are unwarranted and unnecessary. And trust me Nadal hate seems to cross all national boundaries or regional territories, as illustrated by the delusional 'data' dogs!

FlashFlare11
12-26-2011, 07:01 AM
Of course, he doesn't realize it. He won only 2 slams and 5 meagre masters on hard. Shame on nadal, a humble club player. He should learn something from you.

How has he adjusted his game? He is one of the only players calling for a shorter hard court season. It's the same reason nadalwon2012 believes hard courts destroy the body. That observation isn't based on any other player. Hard courts don't damage the body nearly as much unless you try to play on it like clay.

DRII
12-26-2011, 07:10 AM
I've heard many players say that hard courts are harder on the body. Particularly former greats who started out playing on nothing but grass and clay...

FlashFlare11
12-26-2011, 07:26 AM
I've heard many players say that hard courts are harder on the body. Particularly former greats who started out playing on nothing but grass and clay...

There's no doubt that hard courts are a bit harder on the body than clay and grass. But the extent of the toll can largely be minimized (or maximized) by your style of play. Nadal largely doesn't change his game to play on hard courts, which is why he is more apt to be injured and complain about them. I'm not trying to argue that changing his game would make him more successful, or that his lack of change has not led to success, but that his game is what leads him to injuries, not the surface.

PrinceMoron
12-26-2011, 02:31 PM
Clay is the fastest tennis surface, surprisingly. http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/articles/2004/04/follow_the_bouncing_ball.html

You knew that, all along, didn't you.
Respect to Nadal.

nadalwon2012
12-26-2011, 08:30 PM
Your America bashing and/or generalizations are unwarranted and unnecessary. And trust me Nadal hate seems to cross all national boundaries or regional territories, as illustrated by the delusional 'data' dogs!

Nadal is wildly popular in USA and Wimbledon. Just listen to how loud his crowd support was vs Murray at Wimbledon and when he played Roddick in America! Nadal doesn't get hate, but clay gets hate from some posters here who may be American or British is what I'm saying. Of course, the posters on this messageboard don't even make up 1% of tennis fans in the world, so it's kind of irrelevant whether some like clay or not.

Lsmkenpo
12-26-2011, 08:57 PM
Clay court tennis is the most unpopular tennis amongst pro players, fans and sponsors, it quickly becomes boring and doesn't require as much skill to play.

Clay court specialists have always been considered second rate amongst their peers, that is why they refer to them as "dirt rats"

The slowing of the surfaces that require more skill has given the lesser dirt rats more of a chance to compete against the truly talented players on tour, the ones that can hit winners and serve aces.


Grass and hard court tournaments carry the dirt rat tournaments, if the tour were split between the two surfaces, clay court tennis would completely die, there wouldn't be enough interest amongst the top players and fans to even bother televising it.

TMF
12-26-2011, 09:20 PM
Nadal is wildly popular in USA and Wimbledon. Just listen to how loud his crowd support was vs Murray at Wimbledon and when he played Roddick in America! Nadal doesn't get hate, but clay gets hate from some posters here who may be American or British is what I'm saying. Of course, the posters on this messageboard don't even make up 1% of tennis fans in the world, so it's kind of irrelevant whether some like clay or not.

No. Nadal get hate by the French at the FO. He got even more hate after uncle toni called the spectators "STUPID" in 2009 when Nadal lost to Soderling.

Nadal and his uncle need to patch things up with the French when their career is over.

TTMR
12-26-2011, 10:41 PM
Clay court tennis is the most unpopular tennis amongst pro players, fans and sponsors, it quickly becomes boring and doesn't require as much skill to play.

Clay court specialists have always been considered second rate amongst their peers, that is why they refer to them as "dirt rats"

The slowing of the surfaces that require more skill has given the lesser dirt rats more of a chance to compete against the truly talented players on tour, the ones that can hit winners and serve aces.


Grass and hard court tournaments carry the dirt rat tournaments, if the tour were split between the two surfaces, clay court tennis would completely die, there wouldn't be enough interest amongst the top players and fans to even bother televising it.

I always knew Ivo Karlovic was more talented than David Ferrer. It's those damn tournaments conspiring against those that rely on true talent and finesse like the Doc, to the benefit of brutish thug-turned-athletes like Ferrer.

Though there is one question that completely strains my mind. From where did tournament organizers receive the idea points were too short in matches, and were coming to be dominated by aces? TV viewership, attendance? Well that can't be, because according to you, everyone likes fast court tennis and nobody can withstand a boring slopfest, yet they've made every tournament into de facto clay!!!

Yet, everyone hates it. Is it a deliberate plot to drive tennis into obsolescence? I know if I were a tournament organizer, my most pressing concern would be slowing down the courts to alienate fans, viewers and players. I'd want my profit margin to be as low as possible, and to eventually be unemployed and insolvent. Who wouldn't?

Clay lover
12-26-2011, 10:46 PM
I always knew Ivo Karlovic was more talented than David Ferrer. It's those damn tournaments conspiring against those that rely on true talent and finesse like the Doc, to the benefit of brutish thug-turned-athletes like Ferrer.

Though there is one question that completely strains my mind. From where did tournament organizers receive the idea points were too short in matches, and were coming to be dominated by aces? TV viewership, attendance? Well that can't be, because according to you, everyone likes fast court tennis and nobody can withstand a boring slopfest, yet they've made every tournament into de facto clay!!!

Yet, everyone hates it. Is it a deliberate plot to drive tennis into obsolescence? I know if I were a tournament organizer, my most pressing concern would be slowing down the courts to alienate fans, viewers and players. I'd want my profit margin to be as low as possible, and to eventually be unemployed and insolvent. Who wouldn't?

Nice one.:twisted:

MariaRafael
12-26-2011, 11:01 PM
Tickets to fast US Open are readily available during the tournament. Only semifinal and final tickets are unavailable for the slam, only final tickets for masters.

Tickets to slow Roland Garros are very difficult to get even 4 months before the tournament. I have to buy my tickets to Monte Carlo in October, and for Rome Masters in Janury because later on they would be completely sold out. It proves how much public hates clay.

And who are you to speak on behalf of pro players, sponsors, etc.? Are you friends with all of them and they wispered this crap intimately into your ear?

Statements like this allow anybody to question your intelligence. If you don't want to look luike a halfwit, next time say: I hate clay, I hate clay courters, I think that they are second rate, I can't live alone with my hatred and have to pour it on your heads otherwise I may explode.

MariaRafael
12-26-2011, 11:07 PM
btw, check out Stepanek, he's hot, too. ;)

I can't. Every time I see Stepanek, I have to run for my anti-nauseant medication :) I'd rather check out Spanish DC team ;-)

Lsmkenpo
12-26-2011, 11:50 PM
I always knew Ivo Karlovic was more talented than David Ferrer. It's those damn tournaments conspiring against those that rely on true talent and finesse like the Doc, to the benefit of brutish thug-turned-athletes like Ferrer.

I don't consider Ferrer a clay court specialist, do you? I was thinking more along the lines of French Open champions like Gaudio or Costa, who had losing records on all other surfaces over their careers.


Though there is one question that completely strains my mind. From where did tournament organizers receive the idea points were too short in matches, and were coming to be dominated by aces? TV viewership, attendance? Well that can't be, because according to you, everyone likes fast court tennis and nobody can withstand a boring slopfest, yet they've made every tournament into de facto clay!!!


Yet, everyone hates it. Is it a deliberate plot to drive tennis into obsolescence? I know if I were a tournament organizer, my most pressing concern would be slowing down the courts to alienate fans, viewers and players. I'd want my profit margin to be as low as possible, and to eventually be unemployed and insolvent. Who wouldn't?

Your ignorant of the facts thats why you don't know what the hell is going on, IMG corporation manages or owns half the tournaments on tour including Wimbledon they also own the TV broadcasting rights and are partners with the AP making them the largest sports news agency in the world. Guess which two players on tour this company happens to represent, Federer and Nadal. They do whatever they can do in their power which is substantial since they own and control half the tournaments on tour and the media, to make sure their two top players benefit from their decisions. Slowing the courts is their strategy to get as many Federer-Nadal finals as possible. This is where they make their money, not from the rest of the boring matches as a result of their management.
One Federer-Nadal match makes more than the rest of the tournament matches combined.

Tournament directors are puppets for IMG, not independent. the US Open tournament director worked for IMG before he was appointed, and has slowed the tournament down twice in the past 5 years. It sure in the hell wasn't to benefit any of the American players or their fans now was it.

They don't give a damn what the fans think about the tennis they know they will still come to watch regardless of how boring the product is, they control the media and can hype a pile of boring **** to make it seem like it is something special, and people will buy it hook line and sinker because they don't know any better, especially new fans to the sport.

MariaRafael
12-27-2011, 01:08 AM
Could you provide some links to confirm that what you've posted isn't a bunch of lies. I can point out at least one of them. Wimbledon can not be owned by IMG because it is a state property of the Unated Kigdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that delegated its authority to the English Lawn Tennis Association. Wimbledon is also ITF member which is sort of a management company to arrange actual competitions.

IMG represents lots and lots of tennis players besides Nadal and Federer. Do you mean they all want to have slower sirfaces? If yes, than the tournaments are absolutely right slowing them down, and you should switch to some other sport. Why don't you consider squash? It's a real fast game. Sometimes I can hardly see the ball.

tennis_pro
12-27-2011, 01:25 AM
Nadal is wildly popular in USA and Wimbledon. Just listen to how loud his crowd support was vs Murray at Wimbledon and when he played Roddick in America! Nadal doesn't get hate, but clay gets hate from some posters here who may be American or British is what I'm saying. Of course, the posters on this messageboard don't even make up 1% of tennis fans in the world, so it's kind of irrelevant whether some like clay or not.

Nadal is so popular he would get more support in heaven when facing God.

No, wait, I think we're talking about Federer.

Lsmkenpo
12-27-2011, 01:51 AM
Could you provide some links to confirm that what you've posted isn't a bunch of lies. I can point out at least one of them. Wimbledon can not be owned by IMG because it is a state property of the Unated Kigdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that delegated its authority to the English Lawn Tennis Association. Wimbledon is also ITF member which is sort of a management company to arrange actual competitions.

IMG represents lots and lots of tennis players besides Nadal and Federer. Do you mean they all want to have slower sirfaces? If yes, than the tournaments are absolutely right slowing them down, and you should switch to some other sport. Why don't you consider squash? It's a real fast game. Sometimes I can hardly see the ball.

I said owned or managed, IMG manages Wimbledon, here is specific information and links which I have posted and talked about on numerous occasions. Lets get this straight right now, Federer and Nadal are the cash cows of the ATP the rest of the entire tour combined doesn't come close to either of them. They make this company hundreds of millions of dollars a year, no one else is close on the men's tour.
Ticket sales are a drop in the bucket that isn't what makes money, it is TV and advertising dollars they care about not lowly fans, paying for a ticket. Smaller tournaments still make money with 3/4 of the stadium empty until the finals.



.................................................. .................................................. .............

IMG owns, manages or represents many of the world’s leading tennis tournaments. We provide turnkey event execution and unique sponsor programs for major events, from the Australian Open and the The Championships at Wimbledon to the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami, the Barcelona Open Banc Sabadell in Barcelona and the Malaysian Open in Kuala Lumpur. http://www.imgworld.com/services/event-management/tennis.aspx

IMG is the largest independent producer of sports programming in the world. Responsible for more than 18,500 hours of television and more than 20,000 hours of radio annually, our production team has the experience it takes to put on a show in front of the world's largest audiences.

Working alongside our media distribution team, we provide a seamless solution for both rights holders and broadcasters worldwide. Whether it’s live or studio, in stadium or on the course, across America or throughout South Africa, we can handle all your production needs.

Our extensive portfolio of tennis productions includes
Wimbledon
Sony Ericsson Open
Rogers Cup
AEGON Tennis Masters
ABU DHABI Tennis
Development and production of Racquets (Channel) in Singapore.
http://www.imgworld.com/services/media-production/tennis.aspx

Talent Representation > Tennis

IMG represents the best men’s and women’s tennis players in the world today. Our roster of premier clients is simply unmatched in the industry. IMG Tennis spans every generation of talent: the top stars of the modern era, like Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Maria Sharapova and Venus Williams; the future stars of tomorrow, like Vera Zvonareva and Ryan Harrison; and the legends of the game, like John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg and Monica Seles. With an international tournament schedule that spans 11 months of the year, our clients can offer your brand highly prestigious, global recognition year-round. http://www.imgworld.com/services/talent-representation/tennis.aspx

IMG Media is the world’s largest independent distributor of sports programming, distributing over 19,000 hours of content to major global broadcasters annually. This content originates from more than 200 clients and events, including Wimbledon, the Australian Open, the ATP Masters Series, the R&A (governing body and organiser of The Open Championship), International Rugby Board (IRB), MotoGP, the National Football League (NFL) and the International Volleyball Federation (FIVB). IMG Media operates from over 30 offices worldwide and has daily exchanges with over 4,000 key media contacts. IMG Media distributes across all forms of media, including TV, audio, fixed media, inflight and closed circuit, broadband and mobile. IMG Media also maintains the world’s largest sports archive with more than 250,000 hours of footage.

IMG Media is partner in two leading joint ventures. Sports News Television (SNTV), a joint venture between IMG and the Associated Press, is the world’s largest sports news agency. European Tour Productions, a joint venture between IMG and the European Tour, is the world’s most prolific producer and distributor of golf programming with an annual output of over 700 hours. http://www.imgworld.com/services/media-distribution/tennis.aspx

Our tennis clients include:
AELTC
Australian Open
ATP
ATP World Tour 250 events
WTA
World Team Tennis

In tennis, IMG provides comprehensive ticketing services through IMG Tickets. Specializing in all facets of ticket sales and box office services, IMG Tickets focuses on maximizing sales revenue, product knowledge, guest services and consulting. Our service-oriented staff is trained to focus on creating a customized and personal experience with each guest, ensuring strong, successful, long-term relationships.http://www.imgworld.com/services/venue-services/tennis.aspx

Our clients in the tennis category include:
Sony Ericsson Open
Bank of The West Classic
Atlanta Tennis Championships
New Haven Open at Yale

Tennis offers one of the world’s few highly affluent and global sports fan bases. IMG can provide your brand insight into how to reach these valuable consumers anywhere in the world.

We can also provide you with sponsorship assets from some of the world’s most prestigious tennis events, like Wimbledon and the Australian Open, so that you can build effective marketing programs that will engage fans and build your brand.http://www.imgworld.com/services/sponsorships/tennis.aspx
Mubadala World Tennis Championship

IMG Media Archive is the largest dedicated sports library in the world. From 3-D and HD to SD and film, our archive consists of match footage, programming, interviews, ISOs and general views dating back over 100 years. We also hold an extensive collection of factual, cultural, historical, wildlife, lifestyle and entertainment footage. http://www.imgworld.com/services/video-archive/tennis.aspx

In tennis, we manage, market and distribute much of the world's most prestigious tournaments and associations, including the archives for:
Wimbledon
The Australian Open
The Tennis Masters Series
The ATP World Tour
The WTA Tour

IMG Licensing is the world’s premier independent licensing agency with an unrivaled track record of more than 40 successful years. In addition to being ranked #1 in sports licensing, IMG Licensing also offers expertise in a number of different markets and services, including corporate trademarks, brands, entertainment and celebrity properties. Whether you are looking for a property to license or are seeking expert assistance licensing your own brand, IMG Licensing connects you with opportunities that generate new revenue streams and build brand loyalty among your consumers.

In the world of tennis, IMG Licensing represents top talent, trademarks and event properties including: http://www.imgworld.com/services/licensing/tennis.aspx
Nick Bollettieri
Maria Sharapova
Roger Federer
Venus Williams
Wimbledon

Any other questions or backing information you would like me to provide? Decisions are made
to make money, not to satisfy fans, big business comes first. They have their hand in every aspect of the sport and Federer and Nadal are their key players. If Federer or Nadal pass wind they are there to record, sponsor it and release a feel good story about it to the public.

zagor
12-27-2011, 02:22 AM
I always knew Ivo Karlovic was more talented than David Ferrer. It's those damn tournaments conspiring against those that rely on true talent and finesse like the Doc, to the benefit of brutish thug-turned-athletes like Ferrer.

Ferrer never got past the QF at the FO while he reached SF at both AO and USO and all that despite the field being much deeper on HC compared to clay.

Ferrer is no CC specialist.

MariaRafael
12-27-2011, 03:28 AM
Thanks for the links. But still I don't think that IMG owns all these tournament. More likely it is hired as a PR agent or an intermediary between the tournaments and TV/radio companies. I do not insist though because when you read the releases where companies praise themselves you may think that they own the whole world and God Almighty.

SLD76
12-27-2011, 03:32 AM
Thanks for the links. But still I don't think that IMG owns all these tournament. More likely it is hired as a PR agent or an intermediary between the tournaments and TV/radio companies. I do not insist though because when you read the releases where companies praise themselves you may think that they own the whole world and God Almighty.

Tardism is REAL

What part of this sentence didnt you understand???

IMG owns, manages or represents many of the world’s leading tennis tournaments.

Sheesh, just admit you didnt know what you were talking about so we can all move on.

MariaRafael
12-27-2011, 04:20 AM
The part represented by the word OR.

To me this phrase means "own OR manage OR represent" which in its turn is representing Wimbledon without owning it.

PrinceMoron
12-27-2011, 04:41 AM
I was TRYING to watch Agassi at Wimbledon and Mark McCormack turned up with Tom Cruise in tow, and sat in the next row. Every stupid change of ends hundreds of autograph hunters came piling in. Thanks IMG, for mismanaging that, yes, great really, just what we needed.

MariaRafael
12-27-2011, 05:08 AM
What's your problem? You paid for watching Agassi and got two products at one price. Or is it 3 (don't know who McCormack is)?

nadalwon2012
12-28-2011, 03:09 PM
No. Nadal get hate by the French at the FO. He got even more hate after uncle toni called the spectators "STUPID" in 2009 when Nadal lost to Soderling.

Nadal and his uncle need to patch things up with the French when their career is over.

Yeah Nadal gets hate from French people (which Spaniard doesn't? The fact he's won in their country for so long multiplies their hate). But there are hardly any French people in the world, so their hate is irrelevant.

But I was talking about clay-hate, not Nadal-hate. The French are all alone with the Nadal-hate. Americans and Brits have absolutely no reason to like clay. Even American players generally hate clay. And clay is the most opposite surface to Wimbledon in the world, so why would Brits like it? Either way, they love Nadal, as the crowds show when he plays an American/Brit in their home.

Bobby Jr
12-28-2011, 03:59 PM
I said owned or managed, IMG manages Wimbledon, here is specific information.

.................................................. .................................................. .......
IMG owns, manages or represents many of the world’s leading tennis tournaments. We provide turnkey event execution and unique sponsor programs for major events, from the Australian Open and the The Championships at Wimbledon...
They do not run Wimbledon - they do "turnkey events" > i.e. they have corporate tents/hosting packages which brands can be part of during tournaments etc.

I know this for a fact from having a close friend who has worked on the Wimbledon tournament for most of the last decade. IMG have nothing whatsoever to do with running the tournament - they buy space on-site like other organisations do to host their mates (and potential mates) basically.

They are also amongst the big guns in filming tennis so obviously are closely involved with tournament organisers - and with the TV thing, as always, comes broadcasting rights deals and marketing of the event etc. But, as for the even itself, they're just one of many organisations involved in the process.

That said, as a 100+ year old institution run by a board and which is loaded to the gills with money, there is no way the All England club would let sports management company run their show - either directly or by proxy. It just wouldn't happen. They hold the cards on one of the most iconic sporting events on earth and would have TV organisations vying for the filming rights every time a contract neared its end. IMG would be just one of a number of organisation competing for those rights. I'm not sure how the US Open would work or other tournaments but Wimbledon is a stand-alone entity.

Lsmkenpo
12-28-2011, 06:22 PM
They do not run Wimbledon - they do "turnkey events" > i.e. they have corporate tents/hosting packages which brands can be part of during tournaments etc.

I know this for a fact from having a close friend who has worked on the Wimbledon tournament for most of the last decade. IMG have nothing whatsoever to do with running the tournament - they buy space on-site like other organisations do to host their mates (and potential mates) basically.

They are also amongst the big guns in filming tennis so obviously are closely involved with tournament organisers - and with the TV thing, as always, comes broadcasting rights deals and marketing of the event etc. But, as for the even itself, they're just one of many organisations involved in the process.

That said, as a 100+ year old institution run by a board and which is loaded to the gills with money, there is no way the All England club would let sports management company run their show - either directly or by proxy. It just wouldn't happen. They hold the cards on one of the most iconic sporting events on earth and would have TV organisations vying for the filming rights every time a contract neared its end. IMG would be just one of a number of organisation competing for those rights. I'm not sure how the US Open would work or other tournaments but Wimbledon is a stand-alone entity.

The point is the event on grounds with ticket holders is miniscule in relation to TV and media worldwide, and the sponsors. The power with any sport lies with whoever is paying the most money. There was a time when Wimbledon was above that but I just don't think that is the case anymore.

When your top player with a chance to win Wimbledon (Henman) was a S&V specialist you don't decide to slow the courts down unless there is a lot of money involved in the decision.

At the US Open, when your countries top players are big servers you don't slow the courts down unless other interests are taking precedent (money).

The point I was making with the young ******* girl is tennis is a business and decisions are made with that in mind first.

jokinla
12-28-2011, 10:00 PM
Anyone who knows anything about tennis knows he's not 1-dimensional, he's just so far ahead on one surface that a small minded person could view him as being so, but anyone who has accomplished the things he has is for sure among the all time greats.
Make a list of players that in a six year span at Wimbledon, made the finals five of those years, and the year he didn't play the final, he wasn't there. All of those players are at the top of the GOAT debate.
Who has won the French/Wimbledon double, again, only GOAT candidates.
What players have the career slam?
How many players have won the French, Wimbledon, US Open triple?
Any player that has accomplished the above is amongst the greats.

SLD76
12-29-2011, 01:54 AM
The point is the event on grounds with ticket holders is miniscule in relation to TV and media worldwide, and the sponsors. The power with any sport lies with whoever is paying the most money. There was a time when Wimbledon was above that but I just don't think that is the case anymore.

When your top player with a chance to win Wimbledon (Henman) was a S&V specialist you don't decide to slow the courts down unless there is a lot of money involved in the decision.

At the US Open, when your countries top players are big servers you don't slow the courts down unless other interests are taking precedent (money).

The point I was making with the young ******* girl is tennis is a business and decisions are made with that in mind first.

and you dont slow down the courts at your countries slam event, especially when your best hope for a native champion needs faster courts in order to have the best chance unless money is involved.

I am talking of course about Hewitt and how furious he was in 05 when the courts were slowed at AO.

namelessone
12-29-2011, 02:48 AM
and you dont slow down the courts at your countries slam event, especially when your best hope for a native champion needs faster courts in order to have the best chance unless money is involved.

I am talking of course about Hewitt and how furious he was in 05 when the courts were slowed at AO.

Bingo.

Every decision these guys(those that run the game) comes down to money.

That's the real reason why surfaces in tennis were slowed down overall, starting with the premier tournament in tennis back in 2001. The eggheads thought that more rallies would bring in more spectators(and subsequent revenue) and so far they've been proved right.

When attendace becomes low and the tv ratings go down(so less money overall), when people start to bemoan the lack of net play(and that has started already, at least partially), the surfaces will be fast again.

The surface change at the AO doesn't seem to have impacted it in a negative way since AO has the highest attendance overall if I'm not mistaken. So I guess the AO officials would rather have more money that the possibility of a native champion.

jackson vile
12-29-2011, 10:45 AM
This is a good point, that is why at the peak of S&V they started slowing the courts down in 2000. People were not watching anymore because the exchanges were so fast and then over with. But you have to miss that do or die tennis for sure.

Sucks for Pete for sure, he was on his way out, but they certainly ushered him out as fast as they could for sure.



Bingo.

Every decision these guys(those that run the game) comes down to money.

That's the real reason why surfaces in tennis were slowed down overall, starting with the premier tournament in tennis back in 2001. The eggheads thought that more rallies would bring in more spectators(and subsequent revenue) and so far they've been proved right.

When attendace becomes low and the tv ratings go down(so less money overall), when people start to bemoan the lack of net play(and that has started already, at least partially), the surfaces will be fast again.

The surface change at the AO doesn't seem to have impacted it in a negative way since AO has the highest attendance overall if I'm not mistaken. So I guess the AO officials would rather have more money that the possibility of a native champion.

boredone3456
12-29-2011, 11:20 AM
If Nadals record was predominantly or all French Opens people would say he is too one dimensional. However he has evolved and now has a mix of majors everywhere. However...if mostly allof his major victories came at Wimbledon he would be considered an all time great in many eyes because for some Wimbledon is the be all and end all.

Its sort of the same thing in Venus vs Henin. There are those that discredit Henin because she never won Wimbledon and say she is to one dimensional because of 4 of her 7 majors being at the French despite her winning 3 of the 4, yet Venus gets put on a pedestal because she won 5 Wimbledons and she never gets called one dimensional. There is definitely some bias but its not surface based its more major based.

nadalwon2012
12-29-2011, 07:26 PM
It's funny and pathetic to call someone one-dimensional when they are the 2nd youngest winner of the Career Grand Slam and the only man in history to win slams on clay, grass, hard in a Calendar Year. And in addition to that he's made 5 Wimbledon finals! :lol:

Clarky21
12-29-2011, 08:01 PM
It's funny and pathetic to call someone one-dimensional when they are the 2nd youngest winner of the Career Grand Slam and the only man in history to win slams on clay, grass, hard in a Calendar Year. And in addition to that he's made 5 Wimbledon finals! :lol:



How many titles off of clay has Nadal defended in his career?

monfed
12-29-2011, 09:50 PM
Clay court tennis is the most unpopular tennis amongst pro players, fans and sponsors, it quickly becomes boring and doesn't require as much skill to play.



Clay court specialists have always been considered second rate amongst their peers, that is why they refer to them as "dirt rats"

The slowing of the surfaces that require more skill has given the lesser dirt rats more of a chance to compete against the truly talented players on tour, the ones that can hit winners and serve aces.


Grass and hard court tournaments carry the dirt rat tournaments, if the tour were split between the two surfaces, clay court tennis would completely die, there wouldn't be enough interest amongst the top players and fans to even bother televising it.


Yea, lets face it, most tennis fans find clay court tennis dull and boring. I remember back in the 90s, even the first week of Wimbledon was interesting, now they just slowed the grass down considerably so its not anymore. Same with the HCs at AO and USO.

It's more like "gosh lets get this clay season over with so we can watch some exciting tennis at Wimby" , this sentiment was there before Fed and Nadal burst onto the scene.

nadalwon2012
12-29-2011, 09:57 PM
How many titles off of clay has Nadal defended in his career?

How would I know? I don't follow meaningless stats. For example, if a player wins Roland Garros 4 times but never back-to-back, does that seriously bother you? To me that player would be exactly the same as a player who won Roland Garros 4 times including 2 in a row. Would make absolutely zero difference. And let's say Federer had defended a claycourt event once or twice or never....this would make no difference in my assessment of Federer.

jokinla
12-29-2011, 11:23 PM
How many titles off of clay has Nadal defended in his career?

Nice troll!!

namelessone
12-29-2011, 11:44 PM
How would I know? I don't follow meaningless stats. For example, if a player wins Roland Garros 4 times but never back-to-back, does that seriously bother you? To me that player would be exactly the same as a player who won Roland Garros 4 times including 2 in a row. Would make absolutely zero difference. And let's say Federer had defended a claycourt event once or twice or never....this would make no difference in my assessment of Federer.

Then that player sucks according to the geniuses around here.

I find their defending theory quite funny when it comes to Nadal because they act like Nadal wins so many non-clay tournaments per year when Nadal wins one or two, sometimes NONE. Nadal playes like 18 tournaments per year and if he doesn't win those 1-2 non-clay ones again the next year, then he suddenly sucks.

Let's say Nadal beats Murray in Tokio this year and he defends his 2010 title. Does this suddenly make Nadal a better player, held in higher regard? Can anyone seriously say that if Nadal defended Tokio they would have thought more of him as a player? Come on.

Nadal has made his mark on non clay surfaces. 2 WB wins, 1 AO, 1 USO, 5 non clay MS. He can win on these surfaces, he just can't dominate on them. Pure and simple.

reversef
12-30-2011, 01:21 AM
Then that player sucks according to the geniuses around here.

I find their defending theory quite funny when it comes to Nadal because they act like Nadal wins so many non-clay tournaments per year when Nadal wins one or two, sometimes NONE. Nadal playes like 18 tournaments per year and if he doesn't win those 1-2 non-clay ones again the next year, then he suddenly sucks.

Let's say Nadal beats Murray in Tokio this year and he defends his 2010 title. Does this suddenly make Nadal a better player, held in higher regard? Can anyone seriously say that if Nadal defended Tokio they would have thought more of him as a player? Come on.

Nadal has made his mark on non clay surfaces. 2 WB wins, 1 AO, 1 USO, 5 non clay MS. He can win on these surfaces, he just can't dominate on them. Pure and simple.

That "he never defended a title off clay" leitmotiv makes me laugh actually. Sometimes, the haters theories hurt, but this one is just too funny and too ridiculous to make me even remotely angry. Those people are the same as the ones who used to claim "he will never win Wimbledon, uh....he will never win a slam on HC, uh... on "real" HC...." Now, they talk about how Nadal has never won the most important tournament played in the only "manly" conditions" :-P (indoors) and even compare it to Sampras not winning RG. :rolleyes: But the funniest thing is this one: he never defended a title off clay. As if it had some significance. Nadal proved that he can win on every surface and he proved that he has the nerves to defend a title time after time. When I read that, I can see them crying after he won Wimbledon, the AO and the USO. And they must have been more than terrified last year when he reached the final in London. :lol:... Or the final of Tokyo 2011 maybe :wink:

TMF
12-30-2011, 09:07 AM
^^
You guys have to understand that fans doesn't pay attention to players defending titles as much as other important stats, but for Nadal is a different story. At his caliber, not repeating champion non-clay title raises an eyebrow. How many great tennis players never defend a non-clay events? How many? Had Nadal was able to defend a few times, we wouldn't have this discussion. It's one of those rare/bizarre case that caught people's attention. If you look at other sports and there's stange things have happened and people are quick to point out. If Nadal never managed to defend any non-clay title by the time he's done, it will gets reminded again and again in the future.

namelessone
12-30-2011, 09:24 AM
^^
You guys have to understand that fans doesn't pay attention to players defending titles as much as other important stats, but for Nadal is a different story. At his caliber, not repeating champion non-clay title raises an eyebrow. How many great tennis players never defend a non-clay events? How many? Had Nadal was able to defend a few times, we wouldn't have this discussion. It's one of those rare/bizarre case that caught people's attention. If you look at other sports and there's stange things have happened and people are quick to point out. If Nadal never managed to defend any non-clay title by the time he's done, it will gets reminded again and again in the future.

I can see it already, Rafa Nadal, winner of 10(maybe more) slams, Career Slam,Olympic Gold, a gazillion masters tournies. This is all pretty good but DID YOU KNOW HE NEVER DEFENDED A NON CLAY TOURNAMENT?

Holeee crap.

There are plenty of awesome players that have never won(let alone defend) a clay tourney yet no one holds it against them. See Boris Becker.

tudwell
12-30-2011, 09:33 AM
For example, if a player wins Roland Garros 4 times but never back-to-back, does that seriously bother you? To me that player would be exactly the same as a player who won Roland Garros 4 times including 2 in a row. Would make absolutely zero difference.

There's something to be said for repeatedly winning a tournament, though. Winning four in a row, especially at a slam, is more impressive to me than picking up four wins throughout, say, a fifteen year time span. One shows longevity, sure, but the other shows consistency and dominance.

On the other hand, Nadal has shown incredible consistency at Wimbledon - five finals appearances in his last five attempts - but hasn't ever defended his title. That doesn't mean he sucks on grass.

I think some people just aren't capable of looking at things holistically. Nadal's an amazing player on any surface.

beast of mallorca
12-30-2011, 09:43 AM
There's something to be said for repeatedly winning a tournament, though. Winning four in a row, especially at a slam, is more impressive to me than picking up four wins throughout, say, a fifteen year time span. One shows longevity, sure, but the other shows consistency and dominance.

On the other hand, Nadal has shown incredible consistency at Wimbledon - five finals appearances in his last five attempts - but hasn't ever defended his title. That doesn't mean he sucks on grass.

I think some people just aren't capable of looking at things holistically. Nadal's an amazing player on any surface.



Don't ever say that. TW posters will stone you to death. That is blasphemy here, :mad:

TMF
12-30-2011, 09:43 AM
I can see it already, Rafa Nadal, winner of 10(maybe more) slams, Career Slam,Olympic Gold, a gazillion masters tournies. This is all pretty good but DID YOU KNOW HE NEVER DEFENDED A NON CLAY TOURNAMENT?

Holeee crap.

There are plenty of awesome players that have never won(let alone defend) a clay tourney yet no one holds it against them. See Boris Becker.

And there's plenty of journeyman have defended non-clay event. You only gave me Boris, but we all know he wasn't much of a cc player. According to Nadal's fan(including you), Nadal is great on other surfaces, but he can't defend any of them. That's very strange consider most of the tournaments are on hc. It doesn't take away all of his accomplishments, but people will doubt if he really that good, top off with all of his wins are 90% on clay. It doesn't make any sense.

namelessone
12-30-2011, 10:08 AM
And there's plenty of journeyman have defended non-clay event. You only gave me Boris, but we all know he wasn't much of a cc player. According to Nadal's fan(including you), Nadal is great on other surfaces, but he can't defend any of them. That's very strange consider most of the tournaments are on hc. It doesn't take away all of his accomplishments, but people will doubt if he really that good, top off with all of his wins are 90% on clay. It doesn't make any sense.

Nadal is great on other surfaces as well, it's just that he isn't top tier(historically I mean) great on them. He has 2 WB, 1 AO, 1 USO, 5 HC MS which proves what I said, that he can win on non-clay, he just can't dominate on it.

The nr. of HC tournaments overall matters little if Nadal can't win them in bulk and Nadal has shown that he doesn't win many HC/grass tourneys, he just wins the big ones every now and then. Look into Nadal's non clay resume and you'll see few 250/500 HC events, the few he has won have been either AO/USO/Olympic Gold or HC Masters titles. This shows that Nadal wins few but elite non clay titles, which are very hard to defend even for guys with natural grass/HC games, let alone Nadal who has clay pedigree.

The chances Nadal has had since 2005 to defend a non-clay title that wasn't a slam or masters can be counted on one hand. As I said before, this defence theory would hold some water if Nadal was a guy that regularly won on HC and grass but that is hardly the case. Then you could hold it against him. I guess it depends on what you want, either win a lot of non-clay tourneys in bulk(maybe more smaller titles, see davydenko, king of the 250's) or win few but elite non-clay tournies.

Nadal will go down in history as probably THE best claycourter but also as being quite good on other surfaces as well. Few people talk about Nadal's non clay game but if he had won WB this year(to give a example), he would have equaled McEnroe and Becker for WB titles.

Answer me this: If Nadal defended Tokio this year, would you seriously have thought more of him, as in "wow, this guy can play on HC as well"?

I would wager that your honest answer would be no.

Mustard
12-30-2011, 10:11 AM
It's amazing how some people cling to this "hasn't defended a non-clay title" nonsense.

aphex
12-30-2011, 10:16 AM
It's amazing how some people cling to this "hasn't defended a non-clay title" nonsense.

Did you know he has never defended a non-clay title??? That's amazing!
That's unprecedented for a double digit major winner...

beast of mallorca
12-30-2011, 10:20 AM
Did you know he has never defended a non-clay title??? That's amazing!
That's unprecedented for a double digit major winner...

I know huh ? 10 GS, 1 Olympic Gold, 19 MS titles, took number ranking, made Fed cry, etc, etc...........unprecedented alright.

TMF
12-30-2011, 10:27 AM
Answer me this: If Nadal defended Tokio this year, would you seriously have thought more of him, as in "wow, this guy can play on HC as well"?

I would wager that your honest answer would be no.

It's Tokyo, not Tokio.

He needs to defend a few times and in different years then I consider him more of a force. But the point still stand...not defending a single one is bizarre. He's a 10 slam winners + career slam. If you say to a non-tennis fan about Nadal never defend non-clay despite of all of his achievements, they'll be shell-shock.

Anyway, base on the topic of this thread, Nadal have repeatedly defend ONLY on clay, which does valid him as a 1 dimensional

TMF
12-30-2011, 10:32 AM
BTW, clay season is shorter and it's Roger's worst surface. And yet he was able to defend clay events a few times. See my point ?

Clarky21
12-30-2011, 10:45 AM
BTW, clay season is shorter and it's Roger's worst surface. And yet he was able to defend clay events a few times. See my point ?


I thought he only defended Hamburg once,and that was it. I'm not a walking tennis encyclopedia(Mustard),though so I am not for sure.

Hitman
12-30-2011, 10:54 AM
I thought he only defended Hamburg once,and that was it. I'm not a walking tennis encyclopedia(Mustard),though so I am not for sure.

This is true. Hamburg 04 and 05.

namelessone
12-30-2011, 11:03 AM
BTW, clay season is shorter and it's Roger's worst surface. And yet he was able to defend clay events a few times. See my point ?

Let me put it this way, does the nr. of tournaments matter or how deep the particular player goes regularly in them?

Roger has a gazillion clay MS finals and has made RG finals what, 6 times, ?

It's only NATURAL that he would defend something with this amazing rate of going to clay finals. Without Nadal he would easily be the best claycourter of this generation, if not among the best of all time. Nadal without Fed would have probably havev 2 more WB titles but that's about it.

Now let's take a look at Rafa and the far longer HC season. From 2005-2011, how many times has Nadal made finals on HC, let alone win on it? Pretty few when we consider the nr of HC tourneys he entered. But Nadal is so good as speculating that those few he did win were ELITE tournaments.

Your theory would have some merit if the players you're comparing(in this case you compare Rafa with Roger) went to finals on those surfaces(we're talking their worst) regularly but in this case it's only Federer that did that. More finals means more potential wins and more potential defenses.

In the whole of 2005-2011, Nadal had very few instances where he went to finals of non-clay tournies for consecutive years:

2010-2011 WB.
2006-2007 WB.
2007-2008 WB.
2010-2011 USO.
2010-2011 Tokyo.

I mean, Nadal has won only 14 non clay tournies in seven top seasons so what the hell are we talking about? You could argue about Nadal's level on HC/grass overall but you are arguing his so called consistency which is hilarious considering that Rafa wins a non-clay tournament once every blue moon. You should fault him for not winning more often on these surfaces, not for not backing up his already rare wins(this defense that you keep going on about).

Djokovic, who is quite good on clay(5 clay MS finals, made RG SF 3 times), has not defended a single clay tourney to my knowledge even though he has his tailor made tourney back in Belgrade. Should we hold it against him?

SLD76
12-30-2011, 11:29 AM
Let me put it this way, does the nr. of tournaments matter or how deep the particular player goes regularly in them?

Roger has a gazillion clay MS finals and has made RG finals what, 6 times, ?

It's only NATURAL that he would defend something with this amazing rate of going to clay finals. Without Nadal he would easily be the best claycourter of this generation, if not among the best of all time. Nadal without Fed would have probably havev 2 more WB titles but that's about it.

Now let's take a look at Rafa and the far longer HC season. From 2005-2011, how many times has Nadal made finals on HC, let alone win on it? Pretty few when we consider the nr of HC tourneys he entered. But Nadal is so good as speculating that those few he did win were ELITE tournaments.

Your theory would have some merit if the players you're comparing(in this case you compare Rafa with Roger) went to finals on those surfaces(we're talking their worst) regularly but in this case it's only Federer that did that. More finals means more potential wins and more potential defenses.

In the whole of 2005-2011, Nadal had very few instances where he went to finals of non-clay tournies for consecutive years:

2010-2011 WB.
2006-2007 WB.
2007-2008 WB.
2010-2011 USO.
2010-2011 Tokyo.

I mean, Nadal has won only 14 non clay tournies in seven top seasons so what the hell are we talking about? You could argue about Nadal's level on HC/grass overall but you are arguing his so called consistency which is hilarious considering that Rafa wins a non-clay tournament once every blue moon. You should fault him for not winning more often on these surfaces, not for not backing up his already rare wins(this defense that you keep going on about).

Djokovic, who is quite good on clay(5 clay MS finals, made RG SF 3 times), has not defended a single clay tourney to my knowledge even though he has his tailor made tourney back in Belgrade. Should we hold it against him?


Foiled by your own logic. The fact that Rafa hasnt consistently made HC finals, and never defended a HC title sorta proves the point.

He is a great player that can win on other surfaces, but his best surface by far and the ONE surface he truly dominates is clay.


Thus you could make the argument that he is a clay courter who has overachieved on HC. And is very good, but not dominant on grass. I say very good b/c its not like he wins QC or Halle every year.

As far as Djoker goes, lets let the 2012 clay season finish before we talk about what he did or didnt defend on clay

namelessone
12-30-2011, 12:00 PM
Foiled by your own logic. The fact that Rafa hasnt consistently made HC finals, and never defended a HC title sorta proves the point.

He is a great player that can win on other surfaces, but his best surface by far and the ONE surface he truly dominates is clay.



Actually, there's no foil going on, TMF is actually talking about 2 different things: Nadal's overall level on non clay and defence of these titles. We both agree on Nadal's overall level only I see the pointlessness of analyzing's Nadal's defence on non-clay because he does not meet the prerequisite for such an analysis: a large amount of finals on these non-clay surfaces. Nadal makes very few finals on these when compared to his clay stats.

If Nadal "sucks" on non-clay it isn't because he didn't defend his one-two non-clay titles per year the next year, it's because he ONLY WINS 1-2 per year. Get it?

Overall finals and titles on that surface matter, not defences because if you win a lot on a particular surface you will defend a title at one point, it's inevitable.

I already asked TMF this and I'll ask you: If Nadal defended his title in Tokyo this year, do you actually feel that it would have added to his legacy or legitimacy as a HC player? If you say yes, you are either lying through your teeth or being very silly, since Tokio matters little in the grand scheme of things. Applying the logic to Novak(since I gave that example), say Novak doesn't defend Rome and Madrid, but he does so in Belgrade. Does it suddenly make enhance his status on clay, cause you know, he defended a clay tourney? It's ridiculous.

Defenses on worst surfaces are pretty rare, Fed has only one on clay(Mustard, jump in and help me on this one) as far as I know and Fed has made way way more finals on clay than Rafa on HC(when compared to tourneys entered of course).

Nadal is not proficient on HC(if he's not proficient in the first place, why examine if he defended titles or not?), he is speculative.

TMF
12-30-2011, 12:11 PM
Fed defense as champion on clay, hc, indoor, grass. All events range from atp 250, 500, MS, WTF and slam. It's not much too ask for Nadal to defend only one time off clay !
And for him not making much finals on non-clay but consistently winning on clay is a testament of him being 1 dimensional.

namelessone
12-30-2011, 12:26 PM
Fed defense as champion on clay, hc, indoor, grass. All events range from atp 250, 500, MS, WTF and slam. It's not much too ask for Nadal to defend only one time off clay !
And for him not making much finals on non-clay but consistently winning on clay is a testament of him being 1 dimensional.

Yeah man, why can't everybody be like Fed?

If I'm not too good on a surface(worst surface actually) I'll take winning big titles on it but more rarely to these overhyped defences you talk about.

If Fed never won RG(quite possible if Nadal stayed healthy in 2009), would you seriously have put stuck in his Hamburg defense as a testimony for his clay prowess? Wouldn't you have looked to his many many other finals and titles on clay?

95% of today's naturally better hardcourters/grasscourters(if these still exist) would kill for Nadal's non-clay results, 5 WB finals, 3 HC GS finals, 5 HC MS(and a few other lost finals), Olympic Gold, the goddam Career Slam. How the hell can you win all these and be one dimensional?

It means that every HC'er out there(let's face it grass is almost irrelevant in this situation since there are what, 1-2 tourneys per year) that hasn't defended a clay title, is one-dimensional from the get go. Heck, there are hardcourters that haven't won anything on natural surfaces, let alone defend it. What do we call those?

PrinceMoron
12-30-2011, 01:00 PM
What's your problem? You paid for watching Agassi and got two products at one price. Or is it 3 (don't know who McCormack is)?

OMG he is IMG.

(Boss of International Marketing Group, who own Wimbledon and the world by the sounds of this thread).

PrinceMoron
12-30-2011, 01:02 PM
Anyway, the clay is going blue and Nadal is going off in a sulk.

Clarky21
12-30-2011, 01:06 PM
Anyway, the clay is going blue and Nadal is going off in a sulk.


He's not the only top player who doesn't like it. Are they all going to go off in a sulk then,too?

And the blue clay idea is dumb as sh*t. Hopefully it will flop and they will go back to the way it was before.

tusharlovesrafa
12-30-2011, 01:08 PM
He's not the only top player who doesn't like it. Are they all going to go off in a sulk then,too?

And the blue clay idea is dumb as sh*t. Hopefully it will flop and they will go back to the way it was before.

i CONCUR...

Crisstti
12-30-2011, 03:06 PM
Fed defense as champion on clay, hc, indoor, grass. All events range from atp 250, 500, MS, WTF and slam. It's not much too ask for Nadal to defend only one time off clay !
And for him not making much finals on non-clay but consistently winning on clay is a testament of him being 1 dimensional.

No... it's not. It's a testament to him being the best clay court player ever.

SLD76
12-30-2011, 05:15 PM
Actually, there's no foil going on, TMF is actually talking about 2 different things: Nadal's overall level on non clay and defence of these titles. We both agree on Nadal's overall level only I see the pointlessness of analyzing's Nadal's defence on non-clay because he does not meet the prerequisite for such an analysis: a large amount of finals on these non-clay surfaces. Nadal makes very few finals on these when compared to his clay stats.

If Nadal "sucks" on non-clay it isn't because he didn't defend his one-two non-clay titles per year the next year, it's because he ONLY WINS 1-2 per year. Get it?

Overall finals and titles on that surface matter, not defences because if you win a lot on a particular surface you will defend a title at one point, it's inevitable.

I already asked TMF this and I'll ask you: If Nadal defended his title in Tokyo this year, do you actually feel that it would have added to his legacy or legitimacy as a HC player? If you say yes, you are either lying through your teeth or being very silly, since Tokio matters little in the grand scheme of things. Applying the logic to Novak(since I gave that example), say Novak doesn't defend Rome and Madrid, but he does so in Belgrade. Does it suddenly make enhance his status on clay, cause you know, he defended a clay tourney? It's ridiculous.

Defenses on worst surfaces are pretty rare, Fed has only one on clay(Mustard, jump in and help me on this one) as far as I know and Fed has made way way more finals on clay than Rafa on HC(when compared to tourneys entered of course).

Nadal is not proficient on HC(if he's not proficient in the first place, why examine if he defended titles or not?), he is speculative.


You and I mean by you, I mean all *******s(not including you): you can't claim GOAT or better than Federer and yet try to excuse his weaknesses o,

Honestly, I think its because all the greats were trying to excuse Pete's deficiencies on clay and yet reconcile it with him breaking the slam record.

The fact is, the bottom line truth is, Roger is the most dominant player of the open era, and it took the clay GOAT to prevent his uttter and complete dominance of the game. The truth is, good as Rafa is, and he is one of the top 6 greats, he is nowhere near the dominance of Federer, which is why people point out his relative lack of dominance of other surfaces aside from clay.

Again, not that Rafa isnt a great player but the facts show, he was only truly dominant on clay and very very good on grass. I have always maintained he was the the opposite of pete-dominant on clay and to an extent on grass, but relatively weak on HC. yet he was better than pete was on each others' worst surface respectively.

I am however grateful for Rafa fans

nikdom
12-30-2011, 05:25 PM
You and I mean by you, I mean all *******s(not including you): you can't claim GOAT or better than Federer and yet try to excuse his weaknesses o,

Honestly, I think its because all the greats were trying to excuse Pete's deficiencies on clay and yet reconcile it with him breaking the slam record.

The fact is, the bottom line truth is, Roger is the most dominant player of the open era, and it took the clay GOAT to prevent his uttter and complete dominance of the game. The truth is, good as Rafa is, and he is one of the top 6 greats, he is nowhere near the dominance of Federer, which is why people point out his relative lack of dominance of other surfaces aside from clay.

Again, not that Rafa isnt a great player but the facts show, he was only truly dominant on clay and very very good on grass. I have always maintained he was the the opposite of pete-dominant on clay and to an extent on grass, but relatively weak on HC. yet he was better than pete was on each others' worst surface respectively.

I am however grateful for Rafa fans

Great post.

----------------------------

Clay lover
12-30-2011, 06:02 PM
You and I mean by you, I mean all *******s(not including you): you can't claim GOAT or better than Federer and yet try to excuse his weaknesses o,

Honestly, I think its because all the greats were trying to excuse Pete's deficiencies on clay and yet reconcile it with him breaking the slam record.

The fact is, the bottom line truth is, Roger is the most dominant player of the open era, and it took the clay GOAT to prevent his uttter and complete dominance of the game. The truth is, good as Rafa is, and he is one of the top 6 greats, he is nowhere near the dominance of Federer, which is why people point out his relative lack of dominance of other surfaces aside from clay.

Again, not that Rafa isnt a great player but the facts show, he was only truly dominant on clay and very very good on grass. I have always maintained he was the the opposite of pete-dominant on clay and to an extent on grass, but relatively weak on HC. yet he was better than pete was on each others' worst surface respectively.

I am however grateful for Rafa fans

Pete has no RG titles but Nadal has 2 hardcourt majors. I know what you mean but the comparison is a weak one.

nadalwon2012
12-30-2011, 08:22 PM
^^
You guys have to understand that fans doesn't pay attention to players defending titles as much as other important stats, but for Nadal is a different story. At his caliber, not repeating champion non-clay title raises an eyebrow. How many great tennis players never defend a non-clay events? How many? Had Nadal was able to defend a few times, we wouldn't have this discussion. It's one of those rare/bizarre case that caught people's attention. If you look at other sports and there's stange things have happened and people are quick to point out. If Nadal never managed to defend any non-clay title by the time he's done, it will gets reminded again and again in the future.

How many times has Federer defended a claycourt event? It's once, right? (btw how old was he when he achieved this?) Well then when Nadal defends a hardcourt event, the point of haters will be all over. Big deal (was a big deal to the haters, not to anyone else lol).

OddJack
12-30-2011, 08:31 PM
Holly molly,

see what a diff a year can make.

Last year this time it was about Rafa slam and how he could be the goat. And now even his fans not talking about it. He lost the conversation to someone he has a better h2h to. How ironic is that?

nadalwon2012
12-30-2011, 10:12 PM
Holly molly,

see what a diff a year can make.

Last year this time it was about Rafa slam and how he could be the goat. And now even his fans not talking about it. He lost the conversation to someone he has a better h2h to. How ironic is that?

Almost nothing has changed since a year ago. Nadal had 9 slams and was a GOAT candidate. Now Nadal has 10 slams and is a GOAT candidate. Either way he needs a total of 17 slams to take over the GOAT crown.

SLD76
12-30-2011, 11:33 PM
Pete has no RG titles but Nadal has 2 hardcourt majors. I know what you mean but the comparison is a weak one.

didnt you read the sentence where I said rafa was better than pete was on their worst surfaces, respectively?

Clay lover
12-31-2011, 03:54 AM
didnt you read the sentence where I said rafa was better than pete was on their worst surfaces, respectively?

That's why I am saying you are stretching the comparison too far. The patterns to me are not remotely similar. Pete much greater on hard than Nadal on grass, Nadal quite a lot greater on hard than Pete on clay.

OddJack
12-31-2011, 04:02 AM
Almost nothing has changed since a year ago. Nadal had 9 slams and was a GOAT candidate. Now Nadal has 10 slams and is a GOAT candidate. Either way he needs a total of 17 slams to take over the GOAT crown.

Muhahaaa....goat candidate. He is a retirement candidate. There is not such thing as goat with no passion for the game buddy

beast of mallorca
12-31-2011, 04:07 AM
Muhahaaa....goat candidate. He is a retirement candidate. There is not such thing as goat with no passion for the game buddy

Getting desperate there I see. That's what being a loser does to people.

nadalwon2012
12-31-2011, 05:06 AM
Muhahaaa....goat candidate. He is a retirement candidate. There is not such thing as goat with no passion for the game buddy

Unless someone can stop him at RG, you are history my 'friend'. Heck even if someone beats him there, you think he's going to retire straight away? Nope, he'll just work harder to get it back. And how many Wimbledon finals has he made now? 5. He ain't going nowhere.

TMF
12-31-2011, 07:42 AM
No... it's not. It's a testament to him being the best clay court player ever.

He and Borg are the two best player on clay, but Borg managed to repeat as champion on other surfaces. Big difference.

TMF
12-31-2011, 07:49 AM
How many times has Federer defended a claycourt event? It's once, right? (btw how old was he when he achieved this?) Well then when Nadal defends a hardcourt event, the point of haters will be all over. Big deal (was a big deal to the haters, not to anyone else lol).

Tournaments on clay is a lot less than other surfaces(hc, indoor, grass), but since Fed managed to repeat, why not Nadal? Evidence he's not that good.

It has nothing to do with hating when we just pointing out the bizarre fact that Nadal still haven't defend any non-clay. And yes, until Nadal finally defend any title outside of clay we will stop talking. But it won't be until 2013 for him to have a chance since he won zero title outside of clay in 2011.

TMF
12-31-2011, 07:51 AM
Almost nothing has changed since a year ago. Nadal had 9 slams and was a GOAT candidate. Now Nadal has 10 slams and is a GOAT candidate. Either way he needs a total of 17 slams to take over the GOAT crown.

Nadal is a candidate for Tier II great. Same with Agassi, Mac, Lendl, Edberg to name a few.

nadalwon2012
12-31-2011, 08:04 AM
Nadal is a candidate for Tier II great. Same with Agassi, Mac, Lendl, Edberg to name a few.

He's a tier 1 25-year-old candidate, and guess what? He's still 25-years-old. If you destroyed him right now, then he would end on 10 slams. Good luck...

TMF
12-31-2011, 08:12 AM
He's a tier 1 25-year-old candidate, and guess what? He's still 25-years-old. If you destroyed him right now, then he would end on 10 slams. Good luck...

He's still a Tier II great. No one is handing him FREE slams in the future(except you). Plus, there's holes in his resume that he needs to clear them out(i.e. win the WTF).

nadalwon2012
12-31-2011, 08:18 AM
He's still a Tier II great. No one is handing him FREE slams in the future(except you). Plus, there's holes in his resume that he needs to clear them out(i.e. win the WTF).

LOL, nobody will care if Nadal doesn't win the WTF, considering he already has the Masters Shields record, which he is very likely to add to (19 so far, and plenty of clay masters on the way unless Djokovic can win EVERY one of them). Plus Nadal in 2011 made the finals of Indian Wells and Miami. The first time he's made both those finals in the same year (and he's a multiple Indian Wells winner). Having said that, I like Nadal's chances of winning the WTF anyway, but it's certainly not a priority for me as a fan. That's not a hole when you have the Masters Shields record. He's more than proven himself as an all-time great Masters player, obviously. And I never said I was handing him anything, I was just dissing you for talking as if he's finished his career, when he's only 25 and defending RG champion (and has made 6 of the last 7 slam finals).

TMF
12-31-2011, 08:34 AM
^^
Until he reach tier I great, I'll be gladly to accept it when he earned it.

Other than that, he's still a tier II great and any fan of him should be very gratify.

No one care about the WTF? Well, keep convincing yourself if it helps you sleep well at night.

PrinceMoron
12-31-2011, 12:32 PM
He's not the only top player who doesn't like it. Are they all going to go off in a sulk then,too?

And the blue clay idea is dumb as sh*t. Hopefully it will flop and they will go back to the way it was before.

It is a spectator sport, so the clay should be blue. Be nice to actually be able to see the ball. A roof at RG would be good too, or we can't have that because of tradition?

Then again I watched Rusedski lose on blue clay (Samsung Open), that WAS depressing. The announcer gave him the big spiel about getting to the US Open final, then he played like he was still over there on a hard court. Perhaps the blue confused him.

jackson vile
01-03-2012, 08:05 AM
LOL, nobody will care if Nadal doesn't win the WTF, considering he already has the Masters Shields record, which he is very likely to add to (19 so far, and plenty of clay masters on the way unless Djokovic can win EVERY one of them). Plus Nadal in 2011 made the finals of Indian Wells and Miami. The first time he's made both those finals in the same year (and he's a multiple Indian Wells winner). Having said that, I like Nadal's chances of winning the WTF anyway, but it's certainly not a priority for me as a fan. That's not a hole when you have the Masters Shields record. He's more than proven himself as an all-time great Masters player, obviously. And I never said I was handing him anything, I was just dissing you for talking as if he's finished his career, when he's only 25 and defending RG champion (and has made 6 of the last 7 slam finals).

I get what you are saying, I think that they are just bitter, angry, and hopeful. So just ignore it, plain and simply no logic there at all.

jackson vile
01-07-2012, 08:24 AM
It's true, and people try to pretend that they clay season is too long. Remember when they were saying how the clay season needs to be cut shorter and clay needs less masters?


There is no denying that Rafa's skills on clay far surpass those on any other surface. However, I feel that he gets labeled as a one surface wonder even when just what he's done outside of clay should put him in the top 20 all time!

My theory is that part of the reason for this is because prior to Fedal (and except Borg), we had somewhat of a dichotomy in the tennis world -
1) Those who did well everywhere but clay
2) Those who did well ONLY on clay

So clay was almost relegated to the status of this strange surface where 'relatively' unknown dirtballers from South America and Spain would slug it out while the top guns of each era (folks like Mcenroe, becker, edberg, sampras, Connors, Agassi etc) would battle it out else where.

Perhaps the lack of big names battling it out on clay turned off tennis viewers a bit and subconsciously folks placed less importance to RG wins. I remember that as an Edberg fan and then later a Sampras fan, I pretty much paid very little attention to the FO (until Kuerten came along).

So my theory is that if you flipped Nadal's resume to this

6 Wimby's
2 FO (+ 3 Finals)
1 AO
1 USO

then people would give him more credit as an all-rounder just because to a lot of folks 6 Wimby's sounds better than 6 FO's. Even though that would be the exact same resume (balance wise).

Hitman
01-07-2012, 08:33 AM
It's true, and people try to pretend that they clay season is too long. Remember when they were saying how the clay season needs to be cut shorter and clay needs less masters?

The clay season is fine. There are plenty of clay courts events throughout the season. After AO, you have four weeks of clay in South America. Then after IW and Miami, you have main European Clay all the way to FO. Then after four weeks of grass, you get three more weeks of clay that ends just before the Masters event in Canada.

There is plenty of clay events for clay lovers to make a living off. It is not too long, but certainly isn't short either.

billnepill
01-07-2012, 08:34 AM
nadal is tier II great because he is top 5 all time only on one surface and wasn't a dominant player.

if only his ideas for a 2-year ranking system and more clay in the calendar have been adopted, he would have been tier 1 player! At least he tried

TMF
01-07-2012, 09:06 AM
Nadal is a tier I great:

-most topspin fh
-most excuses
-most of the time between point
-most injuries
-most MTO

jackson vile
01-07-2012, 11:16 AM
The clay season is fine. There are plenty of clay courts events throughout the season. After AO, you have four weeks of clay in South America. Then after IW and Miami, you have main European Clay all the way to FO. Then after four weeks of grass, you get three more weeks of clay that ends just before the Masters event in Canada.

There is plenty of clay events for clay lovers to make a living off. It is not too long, but certainly isn't short either.

What needs to happen is that there needs to be more grass.