If there were two clay court slams each year...

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by crosscourt, Jun 6, 2008.

  1. crosscourt

    crosscourt Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,280
    ...and only one hard court slam, who would be number one?
     
    #1
  2. gj011

    gj011 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,548
    Location:
    Back from prison
    #1 is not determined only by the number of slams won during the year, so your question is pointless.
     
    #2
  3. edmondsm

    edmondsm Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    6,904
    Location:
    In an in between place.
    If it was red clay then I would think Nadal. Personally I would like it if there was a slam on fast green clay.
     
    #3
  4. BallzofSkill

    BallzofSkill Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    801
    who cares.
     
    #4
  5. Rhino

    Rhino Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    7,484
    Location:
    South of London, west of Moscow
    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.

    best answer.
     
    #5
  6. Shangri La

    Shangri La Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,170
    Location:
    香格里拉
    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?
     
    #6
  7. drive

    drive Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Messages:
    720
    Location:
    Valencia
    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.
     
    #7
  8. Vision84

    Vision84 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,655
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    I personally see Federer as a better clay court player than Nadal is a grass court player.
     
    #8
  9. bhallic24

    bhallic24 Guest

    Who gives a duck/?
     
    #9
  10. coloskier

    coloskier Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,576
    There used to be 2. The US Open was played on Har-Tru for a few years. The Connors years.
     
    #10
  11. Nadal_Freak

    Nadal_Freak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,625
    Location:
    Harker Heights, Texas
    Nadal would be number 1 followed by Djokovic.
     
    #11
  12. rocket

    rocket Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,538
    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.
     
    #12
  13. coloskier

    coloskier Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,576
    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.
     
    #13
  14. Rhino

    Rhino Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    7,484
    Location:
    South of London, west of Moscow
    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.
     
    #14
  15. tzinc

    tzinc Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    631
    Location:
    On Red Clay
    That's a great point. Nadal would not necessarily be #1 but he would have a better GS record and imo have more respect.
     
    #15
  16. Nadal_Freak

    Nadal_Freak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,625
    Location:
    Harker Heights, Texas
    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.
     
    #16
  17. !Tym

    !Tym Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,697
    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.
     
    #17

Share This Page