Originally Posted by NatF
If all surfaces play the same then how is it that Nadal is so dominant on clay yet not anywhere else? Homogenization is overstated IMO.
Nadal did win a lot of tournaments outside of Clay. If you look at 2011, Nadal made the final of many non-clay tournaments and well lost them to Djokovic, but regardless, he did reach the finals. He's won the US Open and Australian as well as Wimbledon twice. The fact that he won Wimbledon twice still puzzles me, to me grass court tennis is suited to an offensive game like Sampras/Federer, not defensive. Had the courts been as fast they were in 92, I doubt Nadal would of reached the final.The slower hard court definitely help Nadal make a smoother transition from clay to non-clay surface with the least impact on his game.
I remember in the 90's, when someone was winning the french open, I was quick to dismiss them because, while they were great on clay, they couldn't even make the finals of non-clay tournaments. When Nadal started to win RG, that didn't change my mentality either, even thought everyone was seeing him as the next superstar. After seeing him play live in Montreal in 2007, I always thought he'd have a short career because of the grinding and because he was a clay courter. Fast forward a few years later, he earned my respect because he won all 4 slams at least once. But when I look at classic matches and notice right away the speed difference...I know I will take heat for this...but I question the legitimacy of the "achievement"