Who'd you rather be?

Mortifier · 01-10-2010, 10:39 AM

I was asking myself this very question the other day - who'd you rather be - the typical, Spanish claycourter, or the typical, american hardcourter?

If you compare two guys with almost the same merits, lets say Albert Montanes and Robby Ginepri, they've got very different playing styles, but they've got almost the same accomplishments. (You're not to choose from these exact two guys, they're just examples.)

Montanes has never been inside the top 10, top ranking 28, almost 3$ mil earnings, 3 titles, decent player - but never any threat to top 10 players. Ginepri has achieved a little higher ranking (15), a small bit over 3$ mil in earnings, 3 titles, on a good day can be a threat to players ranked between 15-20.

If I had to chose between these kind of players, for some reason, I would go with the Spanish claycourter. I actually don't know why, probably because the venues which are played on clay seem much more friendlier. This is just a shallow observation, but the american hardcourt-tournaments seem to be more "robotic" whilst the South American and European cc-tourneys seem to be more free, casual and have more "soul" included.

So - what would be your pick?

namelessone · 01-10-2010, 10:41 AM

I love clay,I grew up playing on clay,it is my favourite surface but today I would go with american hardcourters because HC(with all its variations) is almost 50% of the ATP,so more chances for me whereas clay is merely a third of the calendar.

Mortifier · 01-10-2010, 11:00 AM

Yes, the hardcourts speak for the money and the larger field of tournaments. However, the hc-players seem to have a hard time playing on clay (with almost no success) whereas there are claycourters that succeed on hc.

Transition, in my opinion, is easier from clay to hc, than the other way around. Of course, top ten players can not be included since they are pretty much allcourters nowadays.

mtr1 · 01-10-2010, 11:26 AM

Neither. I'd rather be a reserved English serve volleyer, who won about 11 titles, and got to roughly 4 in the world. It's an interesting question though, both have to grind out victories, but as previously mentioned, there are more tour tournaments on Hardcourts

adista4 · 01-10-2010, 12:19 PM

american hardcourter....I love hardcourts

SuperDuy · 01-10-2010, 12:38 PM

american hardcourter...

kishnabe · 01-10-2010, 01:04 PM

I love clay and I hate hardcourts. Too many in Canada, hard to find clay. I love sliding and the soft feeling on the court. I love Rolland Garros more than Wimbledon. I like the noise of the ball getting hit on cllay. I love endurance and the mental fatique when playing for long periods of time on clay. I would be a good claycourter and definetly not spanish since I love my own ethicinity.

Mortifier · 01-10-2010, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtr1

Neither. I'd rather be a reserved English serve volleyer, who won about 11 titles, and got to roughly 4 in the world. It's an interesting question though, both have to grind out victories, but as previously mentioned, there are more tour tournaments on Hardcourts

Nice one, you're a rarity in these days.

I usually play on hardcourts, sometimes indoor carpet, but I just moved and now I've got the opportunity to play on clay for half the season (late April through late September) and I'm gonna make sure to enjoy it. Pretty good for the economy aswell, they only charge about 60% for the claycourts comparing to indoors.

As Murray would have said, I serve "pants" so the clay will favor that aswell.

vive le beau jeu ! · 01-10-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtr1

Neither. I'd rather be a reserved English serve volleyer, who won about 11 titles, and got to roughly 4 in the world. It's an interesting question though, both have to grind out victories, but as previously mentioned, there are more tour tournaments on Hardcourts

i'd like to be this one too...

but if it's between ginepri and montanes... definitely ginepri for his better slam record (SF at US open, and R16 at all the other slams... whereas montanes never reached the 4th round of any slam).

Tennis_Monk · 01-10-2010, 07:25 PM

i am ok with either. My game sucks too bad and can use an uplift.

paulorenzo · 01-10-2010, 07:38 PM

both have merits. growing up on clay provides a person with a strong base and great foot work, i imagine - while growing up on a faster hardcourt allows a player to learn how to be aggressive and hit the ball early.

big bang · 01-11-2010, 04:08 AM

claycourter for sure, hate everything else..

dropshot winner · 01-11-2010, 04:23 AM

A claycourter, but an agressive one, not one of those boring grinders.

djokovicgonzalez2010 · 01-11-2010, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropshot winner

A claycourter, but an agressive one, not one of those boring grinders.

Exactly. Hopman Cup Robredo, not US Open Robredo.

dropshot winner · 01-11-2010, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djokovicgonzalez2010

Exactly. Hopman Cup Robredo, not US Open Robredo.

Robredo really look it too Murray...
But I was more thinking about a game like Kuerten's or even Gaudio's.

01-10-2010, 10:39 AM	#1
Mortifier Hall Of Fame Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Troll Cave Posts: 2,210	Who'd you rather be? I was asking myself this very question the other day - who'd you rather be - the typical, Spanish claycourter, or the typical, american hardcourter? If you compare two guys with almost the same merits, lets say Albert Montanes and Robby Ginepri, they've got very different playing styles, but they've got almost the same accomplishments. (You're not to choose from these exact two guys, they're just examples.) Montanes has never been inside the top 10, top ranking 28, almost 3$ mil earnings, 3 titles, decent player - but never any threat to top 10 players. Ginepri has achieved a little higher ranking (15), a small bit over 3$ mil in earnings, 3 titles, on a good day can be a threat to players ranked between 15-20. If I had to chose between these kind of players, for some reason, I would go with the Spanish claycourter. I actually don't know why, probably because the venues which are played on clay seem much more friendlier. This is just a shallow observation, but the american hardcourt-tournaments seem to be more "robotic" whilst the South American and European cc-tourneys seem to be more free, casual and have more "soul" included. So - what would be your pick?

01-10-2010, 11:26 AM	#4
mtr1 Professional Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: England Posts: 1,190	Neither. I'd rather be a reserved English serve volleyer, who won about 11 titles, and got to roughly 4 in the world. It's an interesting question though, both have to grind out victories, but as previously mentioned, there are more tour tournaments on Hardcourts __________________ "I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally." W C Fields Dunlop Aerogel 200

01-10-2010, 12:19 PM	#5
adista4 Semi-Pro Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Timisoara, Romania Posts: 472	american hardcourter....I love hardcourts __________________ 1X Donnay Pro One LE OS, 2X HEAD TT Rad Tour OS, 1X POG OS, 1X HEAD AA Rad OS LE, (Signum Pro Poly Megaforce 1.29 at 28-27kg)

01-10-2010, 07:25 PM	#10
Tennis_Monk Hall Of Fame Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 3,070	i am ok with either. My game sucks too bad and can use an uplift. __________________ I am unbeaten against Federer, Nadal , Sampras, Agassi.

01-10-2010, 07:38 PM	#11
paulorenzo Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 1,569	both have merits. growing up on clay provides a person with a strong base and great foot work, i imagine - while growing up on a faster hardcourt allows a player to learn how to be aggressive and hit the ball early. __________________ 88