Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by crosscourt, Jun 6, 2008.
...and only one hard court slam, who would be number one?
#1 is not determined only by the number of slams won during the year, so your question is pointless.
If it was red clay then I would think Nadal. Personally I would like it if there was a slam on fast green clay.
Federer would win the grass and hardcourt, plus make (at least) the final in the two clay events. Nadal would win the clay slams but would be lucky to make the final of both the others.
So Fed would still be number one.
If you're looking for a way to make Nadal #1 - try 4 clay slams.
A very thoughtful post. What if there was not clay court slam and all were played on hard court/grass, where will the current number 2 rank?
Why Fed would make the final in the two clay events and Nadal would be lucky to make the final of the grass one? That makes no sense.
I personally see Federer as a better clay court player than Nadal is a grass court player.
Who gives a duck/?
There used to be 2. The US Open was played on Har-Tru for a few years. The Connors years.
Nadal would be number 1 followed by Djokovic.
Let's not forget that Fed is currently the 2nd best CC player in the world. If anyone could beat Nadal on clay, it'd be Federer.
Fed would have better results on clay than Nadal would have on hard courts, so Fed would still be #1. And Djokovic would be lower than #3. His body couldn't take the pounding from 2 clay court Grand Slams.
just because Fed tends to make the final of clay court events, but Rafa has never done very well at the US Open, plus he has played some close matches at Wimbledon that could've gone either way.
That's a great point. Nadal would not necessarily be #1 but he would have a better GS record and imo have more respect.
Yep. Nadal has been unfairly disadvantaged that only 1 slam is on clay. Even grass benefits him more than hardcourts. Just bad luck on the surfaces used these days. It was worse in the 90's but still not evenly distributed.
Completely agree with you here. Players reared for clay, which is a HUGE portion of the tennis playing population worldwide, have been given the shaft for far too long once they hit the pro tour.
The Australian should be made into a fast green clay court. This would still give the claycourters an edge, but not necessarily an insurmountable edge, similar to how the US Open is that way for the hard courters vs. the clay courters. This would then make the French Open the tournament that heavily favors slow courters, just as how Wimbledon is the tournament that heavily favors fast courters. The difference would be that now BOTH the slower courters and fast courters would have equal chances at becoming tennis legends. As it is right now, basically unless you're a fast courter with more traditional strokes, it's virtually impossible to become a tennis legend simply because of the only five tournaments that ACTUALLY count (the 4 slams + the year-ending masters), 4 out of the 5 all stack the odds in favor of the fast courter.
Separate names with a comma.