Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Did nadal benefit from a weak clay era? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=449755)

dominikk1985 01-03-2013 08:30 AM

Did nadal benefit from a weak clay era?
 
I do admit, that fed did benefit from the very weak 03-06 era.
the 08-12 era is much stronger, however you have to admit, that nadal did not face a lot of great clay specialists.

the 90s and early 00s had so many great clay courters (guga, muster, brugera and the other spaniards, courier...) but which great clay courters played from 05-12?

there have been some OK clay courters but in the end he played most finals against federer who is great but certainly no clay specialist. I don't see any great clay courter that he had to beat.

President 01-03-2013 08:50 AM

I think Federer and Djokovic would clean up against all those clay specialists you mentioned apart from Kuerten. The slowing of the surfaces these days means everyone at the top has a great baseline game and Djokovic and Federer both move exceptionally well on clay, having grown up on the surface.

Cup8489 01-03-2013 08:51 AM

the AO can't start soon enough..

Towser83 01-03-2013 08:54 AM

He'd still have 5-6 RG titles at this point unless he had to face Borg.

NatF 01-03-2013 08:57 AM

It wouldn't make a difference. Nadal is too damn good.

zagor 01-03-2013 09:04 AM

If I'm completely honest, I think Nadal's just too good on that surface.

The only people I'd see challenging him (if they are playing their best) are Borg, Guga and Rosewall.

Povl Carstensen 01-03-2013 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatF (Post 7094990)
It wouldn't make a difference. Nadal is too damn good.

Just like Federer.

dudeski 01-03-2013 09:06 AM

Nadal benefited from being the clay GOAT.

nikdom 01-03-2013 09:07 AM

If you take vitamins and alternate between running all day like a rabbit and being out injured with a broke knee, yeah, you can dominate clay as a leftie. Nadal sold his soul to the devil to win a few more slams than he could have hoped for naturally.

Helps that the only fellows who give a crap about clay are other talentless spaniards and latin americans.

90's Clay 01-03-2013 09:26 AM

Did Fed benefit from a weak grass era and lack of threats at the top in general from 2004-2007 on all surfaces outside of Nadal on clay? ?


Neither surfaces have been "great" per say in terms of talent and depth from the 2000's-present time. But Nadal would have been all time great on clay in ANY era. Would he have only managed to lose once at the French his entire career thus far in a different era? I highly doubt it but he would have grabbed his fair share regardless of his competition

nikdom 01-03-2013 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 90's Clay (Post 7095050)
Neither surfaces have been "great" per say in terms of talent and depth.

LOL

Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian were no competition?

And who exactly was Nadal's competition? Can't even remember any names thats-who..

90's Clay 01-03-2013 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikdom (Post 7095061)
LOL

Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian were no competition?

And who exactly was Nadal's competition? Can't even remember any names thats-who..

Hewitt, Safin, and Nalbandian on grass? Please..


Overrall.. Safin and Nalbandian were complete NO shows 85 percent of their careers. Hell have the time you forgot they were even around.


Hewitt was FINISHED after 2005. From 2006-on he was done

SLD76 01-03-2013 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cup8489 (Post 7094979)
the AO can't start soon enough..

agreed..then the frequency of these nonsense threads will dramatically decrease.

veroniquem 01-03-2013 09:46 AM

No clay era would be strong enough for Nadal anyway, so it's a moot point.

SLD76 01-03-2013 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veroniquem (Post 7095101)
No clay era would be strong enough for Nadal anyway, so it's a moot point.

for once you said something sensible, speculative as it is.

merlinpinpin 01-03-2013 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veroniquem (Post 7095101)
No clay era would be strong enough for Nadal anyway, so it's a moot point.

Not even a *blue clay* era? :D

kishnabe 01-03-2013 10:35 AM

There could be better clay courters in this era....but Nadal would still dominate. Maybe we just want to see Rafa lose a set to someone other than the top 4 guys every once in a while.

veroniquem 01-03-2013 10:40 AM

Actually, Fed and Djoko have done well winning each 2 clay finals against Rafa. That's the best anyone has done since 2005. I'm not sure Sampras and Agassi would have done as well.

veroniquem 01-03-2013 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin (Post 7095199)
Not even a *blue clay* era? :D


Ha ha yeah, blue trash era would have been Rafa's downfall. It would have been clay's downfall too, so hopefully it will never come to pass...

DRII 01-03-2013 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dominikk1985 (Post 7094933)
I do admit, that fed did benefit from the very weak 03-06 era.the 08-12 era is much stronger, however you have to admit, that nadal did not face a lot of great clay specialists.

the 90s and early 00s had so many great clay courters (guga, muster, brugera and the other spaniards, courier...) but which great clay courters played from 05-12?

there have been some OK clay courters but in the end he played most finals against federer who is great but certainly no clay specialist. I don't see any great clay courter that he had to beat.

Yes...

I'm glad someone can admit the first part; even though you left out a year.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse