Nadal's complete lack of competition 2005-2010

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by BeHappy, Dec 20, 2011.

  1. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    In 2005 the following clay court specialists stopped playing

    -Keurten - 3 times RG champ, at age 26 had to basically retire because of his hip injury. Even with his injury he knocked Federer out of the French Open in 2005, Federer was obviously at his very best. He had a very similar playing style to Soderling, except with a better backhand and far better movement.

    -Coria - won 5 clay court tournaments in a row 2004. had a mental breakdown and couldn't serve at all after 2005. Had one of the most incredible matches in claycourt history with Nadal in the Rome final in 2005. He too stopped playing that year.

    -Gaudio - went 42-8 on clay in 2005, beat and Bagelled Nadal that year as defending French open champion (as all the great backhands have: Nalbandian, Djokovic etc). Like Coria he had a mental breakdown and stopped playing.

    Ferrero - Got the chickenpox in 2005, came back and his forehand had disappeared. Still hasn't recovered his forehand, he ceased to be a top 10 player after that.

    Moya - got old/backhand disintegrated.

    Today's so called 'clay court specialists' like Tommy Robredo, David Ferrer and Almagro aren't even as good on clay as Sampras was. Nadal had literally no competition until Djokovic came into his own this year.

    Keurten in particular would have been a HUGE problem for Nadal with his incredible backhand, he would have dominated off that wing the same as Nalbandian, Djokovic and Davydenko have. The same with Gaudio. Coria was just incredible and would have had his wins too.


    Can we really say Nadal would have 6 RG titles if every single clay court specialist hadn't been struck down at the same time?
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
    #1
  2. jerriy

    jerriy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,076
    Nadaltards have 2 choices to wiggle out of the conundrum:
    1. Admit that Borg is the greatest claycourter of all time cuz unlike Borg Nadal had no clay competition, or,
    2. Prop-up Fed as a fellow clay court genius/fellow claygoat contender :mrgreen:
    .
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
    #2
  3. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686
    He beat the Goat to win 5 of those titles. I think that counts for something.
     
    #3
  4. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Federer wouldn't have gotten anywhere near those RG finals if Keurten, Coria, Gaudio and Ferrero hadn't all broken down. Not a chance. It's massively inflated Federer's record on clay as much as it has Nadal's.
     
    #4
  5. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Guest

    I'm a bit lost with this sentence. I can't see Sampras beating any of these three on clay.
     
    #5
  6. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Sampras won Rome, got to 3 RG quarterfinals and a semi final. Almagro, Robredo and Ferrer don't have a better record than Sampras on clay by any means.

    And Sampras did it in the clay court golden age of Courier, Muster, Brugera, Chang, Agassi, Kafelnikov. There was such depth back then that Sampras had to beat Courier just to get to the Semi final of the French Open.

    Sampras was better on clay than every single clay court specialist today bar Nadal. That's how bad today's "clay court specialists" are.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
    #6
  7. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    I guess most of this forum wasn't even watching tennis in 2005.
     
    #7
  8. Crazy man

    Crazy man Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    701
    Even Roddick beat Robredo on clay, lol. Sampras would have his chances. Almagro I don't rate one bit. However I was impressed with his attitude last FO and kept it together mentally with Nadal despite losing 3 close sets, Ferrer I think would completely destroy Sampras on clay.
     
    #8
  9. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Sampras had less competition than Nadal. And he still couldn't win the FO, LOL.
     
    #9
  10. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Brugera, Courier, Chang, Muster aren't competition?

    How about Agassi and Kafelnikov? Berasatugai?

    Golden age of clay. Meanwhile Djokovic is getting blown out of RG by Nadal's pigeon.
     
    #10
  11. bluescreen

    bluescreen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,636
    I'm surprised this thread has managed to stay on topic for a whopping 8 posts.

    And I'm equally surprised no one has has given the ol' "Nadal is so good it makes all of his opponents seem average" gambit.

    I agree that the clay court competition from 05-10 wasn't as deep as the '90's or the early 2000's, but we can't forget about Federer. A majority of Nadal's tournament wins on clay pitted Nadal against Federer--many in which Federer was in his prime--and Nadal won almost every time.

    Federer, in my eyes, is equal to about 3 or 4 great claycourters. Because he was so consistent in getting deep in clay court tournaments, Nadal didn't get a chance to play other good clay courters in the Finals of most of his clay tournaments.

    To summarize: a "lack of competition" is impossible if Federer is in the draw.
     
    #11
  12. CMM

    CMM Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Messages:
    6,713
    Nadal is so good it makes all of his opponents seem average.
    It's true, at least on clay.
     
    #12
  13. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Those guys are competition but Sampras didn't always lose to those guys on clay, he lost to a bunch of other nobodies.
     
    #13
  14. dudeski

    dudeski Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,256
    Typical ignorant Federer hater.

    Federer is 3-0 vs Coria (2-0 clay). 5-0 vs Gaudio (2-0 clay) and 9-3 vs Ferrero (3-0 on clay).
     
    #14
  15. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    For about 5 years when Sampras actually cared about clay the results were winning Rome, 3 RG quarter finals and a semi final in the most competitive field in clay court history.

    Djokovic doesn't have the stamina to win on clay over 5 sets.

    Coria and Gaudio were just coming in to their own (A bit like Hewitt beating Federer the first 8 times they played), and Ferrero hasn't been good on any surface in nearly 7 years.

    He snook a win against Keurten in Hamburg when Keurten was fresh from surgery, but even on one leg, on an injury that was so bad Keurten was only weeks from retirement, and at Federer's absolute best, Keurten knocked Federer out of the French Open in 2005.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
    #15
  16. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,373
    He did not you ignorant troll.
     
    #16
  17. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    20,041
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Top thread this one.
     
    #17
  18. dudeski

    dudeski Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,256
    Federer is younger than Gaudio and Ferrero and 6 month older than Coria. Please cut the crap out. Federer only lost to one of them, Ferrero, twice in 2000 and once in 2003 because Ferrero was earlier bloomer than Fed. Fed owns them all since end of 2003. Including owning both Coria and Gaudio in 2004/2005 on clay when they were in their peak.

    Guga beat Fed in 2004 FO. Fed reached prime on clay in 2005.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
    #18
  19. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Wasn't 2004 the year Federer won 3 grand slams? I think he was pretty good in 2004.

    Federer is the same age as Hewitt and lost to him the first 8 times they played. Players mature at different rates and you know it.

    Gaudio was a journeyman before he won the French Open and only as defending RG champ in 2005 did he transform into a real force on clay. Yes he beat Coria in 2004 and that was a good win, but everyone knows Coria lost his mind after that 2004 French Open final.
     
    #19
  20. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,267
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    Pete Sampras's losses at the French Open 1995-2002:
    1995: Lost 1R to Schaller, ranked #24
    1996: Lost SF to Kafelnikov, ranked #7
    1997: Lost 3R to Norman, ranked #65
    1998: Lost 2R to Delgado, ranked #97
    1999: Lost 2R to Medvedev, ranked #100
    2000: Lost 1R to Philippoussis, ranked #25
    2001: Lost 2R to Blanco, ranked #76
    2002: Lost 1R to Gaudenzi, ranked #69.

    He would definitely get regularly beaten by the likes of Ferrer and Almagro.
     
    #20
  21. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    I like the way you started from 1995, Sampras stopped caring about the French Open after 1996. He got to 3 quarter finals, a semi final (beating Courier) and won Rome.

    Better than Almagro, Ferrer and Robredo. Today's "claycourt specialists".
     
    #21
  22. dudeski

    dudeski Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,256
    We both know that Nadal the clay GOAT is the only thing that stopped Fed from having 5 or 6 FOs. No point even talking about Guga, Gaudio or Coria. It's like saying Sampras sucks on hard courts because he lost 1992 USO final to old man Edberg.
     
    #22
  23. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Old man Edberg? What? He would have been 25-26 at the most surely?
     
    #23
  24. dudeski

    dudeski Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,256
    Yes he is 5 1/2 years older than Sampras and in 1992 he played 5 setters in R16, Q, S and he still had the energy to beat Sampras in the final. Does that mean that Sampras only won 5 USO because Agassi sucks and Edberg stopped playing?
     
    #24
  25. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    He was 25 years old. I don't know what universe 25 is 'old' in...
     
    #25
  26. dudeski

    dudeski Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,256
    Ask namelessone :)
     
    #26
  27. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,602
    You paethetic little hater, Hewitt led 3-0 (Fed won sets in every match) before Fed won 2 of the next 3 matches. Hewitt didn't even beat Federer for the 8th time until Halle 2010, fool.
     
    #27
  28. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,602
    Luckily for Sampras Edberg was done after 1993, obviously a 30-year old Edberg couldn't pwn Sampras a** like he did twice in slams in 1992 and 1993.
     
    #28
  29. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,602

    And what big names did Sampras beat on clay, exactly? I'd like to know. Cause all I see is cake draws in all his deep runs.
     
    #29
  30. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    I just double checked that one the atp website (Hewitt still led 7-2 so my point still stands)

    Anyway, looking at the head to head, it's listed as 18-8 to Federer, but I can't count more than 7 wins for Hewitt from their list of matches?
     
    #30
  31. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Beat Courier in the QF of the French Open the year he got to the semi final, that's just off the top of my head.


    Edberg had back problems.
     
    #31
  32. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,602
    There's no "still led", you claimed Federer didn't beat Hewitt until the 9th meeting while Federer won 2 of the first 7 meetings and Hewitt needed to wait until 2010 to score for the 8th time against Federer, so eat your own sh*t now.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
    #32
  33. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,267
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    He'd been winning majors since he was 19 and had nearly 750 matches under his belt by the time of the 1992 U.S. Open; he wasn't exactly a spring chicken.
     
    #33
  34. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,602
    Not only Courier was not THE Courier of 1991-1993 but Sampras also had to rely on a massive choke to even sneak through him. Anything else? Do you want to mention how Sampras beat Muster on clay in 1989 when Muster was 4 years before his clay prime haha (and also had to rely on a choke from Muster who led 2-0 in sets)?


    When he owned Sampras in slams? Well that's even worse for Pete, imagine if Stefan was fit LOL
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
    #34
  35. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,795
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    this is a complete fail thread.
     
    #35
  36. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Federer was being dominated and he turned it around, you just proved my point with your own words.

    He was 25 for goodness sake. Sampras had been winning majors since he was 19 and he peaked at the age of 28-29.

    Of course he was THE Courier, Sampras just kept knocking him out of grand slams.



    The competition was unbelievable back then.
     
    #36
  37. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,795
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    please stop, and save yourself some embarassment.

    you have proven you know very little about tennis.
     
    #37
  38. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,602
    That point stands as it did but you're getting your data from some FAIL sources. Btw Kuerten didn't beat Federer at the 2005 French, it was the 2004 French. FAIL.


    You're telling me that Courier from 1996 = Courier from 1991-1993
    HAHAHAHA make a thread in the Former Pro Player Section and look at the replies, fool.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
    #38
  39. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Federer won 3 majors in 2004 to 2 in 2005 so you just proved my point. Unlike you I'm not running off to wikipedia or youtube, I watched these matches and I'm going by memory so there are going to be some irrelevant mistakes as to exact dates and so on.



    Most of them claim to have watched Cochet play Lacoste 85 years ago, most of them are complete fantasists.

    Nonsense.
     
    #39
  40. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,602
    I just proved that you're a tool and you should thank me for it. Kuerten didn't beat Federer at the 2005 French Open, check it again and come back to me. Federer wasn't in his clay prime until 2005/2006, in 2004 he also lost to freaking Costa on clay.

    Wise enough to know Courier from 1996 wasn't half as good on clay as he was in 1992.
     
    #40
  41. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Keep running to wikipedia, you still know nothing about this sport. In fact if he beat him in 2004, a year Federer won 3 slam compared to just 2 in 2005, that just proves my point even more strongly.


    That's a matter of opinion. The standard of competition on clay was way higher in the mid 90's than the early 90's.
     
    #41
  42. Fate Archer

    Fate Archer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,669
    It saddens me a bit all the clay battles we could potentially witness if Coria, Gaudio, Ferrero and Kuerten didn't have their careers abbreviated by injuries, mental collapses and whatnot.

    Aside from Kuerten, who would be pretty much a threat to everyone in his way, I think Coria and Gaudio would be more of a threat to Nadal than Federer, given how they matchup and their past results.

    Gaudio is one of the few who can boast with his 3 wins over Nadal on the surface, and Coria gave Nadal one of his roughest battles at the 2005 Rome final. The prospect of meeting Coria not in the final would be absolutely terrfying as even winning against him, it would certainly take a toll on Nadal's gass tank, as their matches were very physical with really long rallies.

    As for Federer in 2004 on clay, it was either too hot or too cold. He was still a bit inconsistent, he lost a match against Costa at Rome where he was pretty much bossing Costa around the court and shouldn't have lost, or he could get red hot and and make some really impressive runs, demolishing even some past/future RG champions and finalists (Hamburg that year was one of his most impressive clay tournament runs).

    As for his game, Fed's footwork and movement on clay wasn't yet optimized on the surface untill 2005 where he started to feel and move really comfortably, from 2005 Fed started to really master the sliding and the way to move on clay.

    That was pretty evident on his match against Kuerten that year, where many times he would slip on points and not move with the same proficiency on the surface that he would start to show in the next few years.

    2005 was the year Fed took his movement and footwork, which were already great to begin with, to a whole new level, not only on clay but pretty much anywhere else.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
    #42
  43. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,602
    You're making a complete fool of yourself, these are the OFFICIAL stats from the OFFICIAL ATP WEBSITE or maybe you got better sources? I proved you wrong twice and waiting for more fails.


    How come nobody else except you claims that Courier wasn't better in 1996 than he was in 1992? I don't know...maybe cause you're a *********** who wants to magnify Sampras' wins on clay?
     
    #43
  44. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,602
    What point? Are you MAD? You claimed Kuerten beat Fed at the 2005 FO when in fact it was the 2004 FO, wtf are you still arguing about? WTF does Federer winning 3 majors in 2004 or 2 majors in 2005 have to do with Kuerten beating Federer at the French Open!??!!?!?!?!?
     
    #44
  45. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,795
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    psssssssstt....dont confuse him with facts.
     
    #45
  46. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,602
    this is hilarious, words aren't enough to describe what a complete fool this guy is
     
    #46
  47. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Because this an American website, Courier isn't winning on clay anymore? Must be that he's declined, Nevermind the emergence of Brugera, the re-emergence of Muster and Chang, Kafelnikov starting to get really good, Korda starting to get really good, Agassi getting even better etc etc.

    The reality is that the clay court field got WAY better in the mid 90's. Courier picked his up in a lull between the Wilander/Lendl Era and the mid 90's golden age. He was still doing well in hard court slams too, Sampras and Agassi had just matured and were just knocking him out.

    It says a lot about how good Kuerten was. The better Federer was, the more impressive Keurten's win was.
     
    #47
  48. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,795
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall

    do you even remember what your original point was?

    And courier 1996...wasnt that after his mental burnout period. wasnt pretty much on his way out of the game by then?


    please stop, dont embarass yourself further.
     
    #48
  49. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Yes I remember very clearly what my point was despite you and all your sock puppet accounts trying to annoy me.
     
    #49
  50. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,267
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    Sampras did not peak at 28-29. He played a couple of exceptional matches in 1999. He was also losing to Philippoussis at Wimbledon before the latter had to retire. Why do people not understand yet that it's more the mileage and less the age that slows athletes? Sampras was clearly past his best even in his final year of being #1, as he crammed more matches into his schedule than his aging body could handle.
     
    #50

Share This Page