Originally Posted by edmondsm
Well considering that it is becoming far and away the most common surface on tour, it IS the superior surface by any objective measure. Accept it. It is the surface that rewards the most points to those who are good on it.
As I pointed out, and you conveniently ignored, if a player was extremely dominant on grass but couldn't get it done anywhere else they would be chastised by this board for focusing their game so narrowly.
This is why Nadal gets a lot of crap. His style was structured to succeed solely on a surface that was in decline while the rest of the tour adapted to playing a lot of HC tennis. It took him too long to adapt (he never fully did imo) and this is why his body has given him so many fits. On top of that, he and Tony whine endlessly about hardcourts being the prevailing surface on tour.
Wrong. It's the most prevalent but prevalence does not make it superior.
No they wouldn't.
Everyone should conform just to please you I suppose. How dull and boring would tennis be if all we had were nothing but hardcourts? They are already dominating the tour as it is. Do you really want every single tournament out there played on the same, boring hardcourts? Funny that ****s are usually the ones who bring up the lack of variety in todays game, but don't hesitate to wish for MORE hardcourts on a tour that is already oversaturated with them as it is. There's no variety in pounding down serves all day with little to no rallies.
And Nadal would not be able to win with you because if he were a hardcourt specialist, you would just harp on the fact that he can't win on clay and grass.