Toni Nadal on Rage

[Apun94]

Originally Posted by cork_screw

You wanna see more clay tournaments? You're insane. Those clay masters are all globbed together. I don't see the difference between them; madrid, monte carlo, rome. All the same. And all pretty boring. But to me, Miami and Indian wells are totally different and that's why I love watching them.

I was talking about variety. Each and every time the WTF is on HC. Why not on clay or, better yet, GRASS? There are so many HC tournaments...
I am surprised you bring this up since almost everyone here wants variety...

[tennisMVP]

Originally Posted by cork_screw

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Toni-N...icolo7169.html


”If it was up to us we would play always on clay but its not something possible. Of the four Slam tournaments, two are on hard court. The Master 1000 are play almost all on hard court. It’s complicated to change the rules. There’s nothing to do. The only thing we can do is competing on fast surfaces. Then usually we have 3 Masters on clay, last year just two…


He kinda wants the entire ATP body to re-shape it's structure based on his nephew. Does he need an all advantage Rafa schedule, kinda absurd. I don't know why he's asking for some GS and more Masters to be converted over to clay.

Are you saying you are surprised that the greatest claycourter of all-time (and his coach) prefers clay? You are absurd.

[monfed]

Both Toni and Nadal knew fully well what the slams comprised of when he took up tennis as a profession. Ralph knew there were 2 HC slams and 1 grass slam,that's 3 out of 4 slams for basically shotmakers but instead he chose to be a grinder.
So,choosing to be a dirtballer is Ralph's fault,not the ATP's. If anything he should thank his stars they slowed down everything,even USO to suit his style of play. And yet his uncle has the audacity to complain. How selfish are the duo?

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

I don't agree. It's much easier to adapt as a hardcourter to even more hardcourts,even if one is slightly slower than the other. Player's whose best surface is clay or grass have to adapt much more than a player whose best surface is hardcourt since the tour is something like 70% hardcourts. No matter how slow or fast they are,a hardcourter doesn't have to adapt nearly as much as a claycourter or grasscourter has to.

I would like to see less hardcourt masters,or at least don't make them all mandatory. And add a grass masters in there as well. The grasscourt season is merely a blip on the radar these days.

There's as much adapting to be done between the various hard court conditions as there was between blue clay and red clay.

The fact is, most courts in the main tennis countries are hard court. You can't go and add clay court tournaments of any note in Australia, most of Asia or North America. So, the plausible alternative is adding them in Europe... that would be patently unfair considering a big part of tennis is adapting not only to conditions but also travel. If all the clay court tournaments were in Europe then the travel aspect would be minimal compared to the current hard swings which often vary half a world away week overt a period of a few weeks. So the fair (not to mention) practical way would be to have two clay swings - one where it is now and another later in the year.

Players whose best surface is clay have put their chips on the wrong number according to where points can be made - that is simply poor planning from a young age in players who are clay court specialists. You can't force the 'market' to be something it's not. There are more hard-courts spread further around the world than clay - trying to use the 'fairness' debate in terms of how the pro season is formulated is suspiciously self-serving. Muster did it as did some notable Spanish players previously. Amazingly, after all the significant changes which have been made which have been almost entirely to clay court players benefits - the almost blanket slowing of courts at APT events globally - they still want more clay.

As I said, I'm happy for there to more clay tournaments but only if the hard courts are sped up again and, while they're at it, Wimbledon should be reverted to pre 2000 conditions.

Under these theoretical changes Nadal would have no Wimbledons or US Open titles. He would actually be worse off in his achievements, not better. Sure, his knees might hold out longer.....

If anything it's the hard court players who have reason to gripe about court conditions on tour in the past decade. Many more players have been severely hindered by the significant slowing of hard courts than clay courters by lack of clay courts.

[BlueB]

Originally Posted by Razoredge

Grass is for cows.

And mud is for pigs...
Those uneven bounce surfaces are the relics from the past.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

But why should certain players who excel on clay be forced to adapt when hc specialsts don't have to adapt one bit? Just how much adaptation are hardcourters doing? None. It's not even close to being fair,but I don't expect the majority of the folks here to admit that considering Nadal is public enemy number one around here.

Fair? Why should hardcourt specialists have to play on clay at all? let Nadal stick to the clay events, and HC specialists to HC.

It's only unfair because Rafa doesn't benefit from it. Nonsense, favoritism. No one else is complaining.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by kragster

I think you're dead wrong on this. The surface distribution is something that evolves over time and players are expected to adapt to it. You can argue that the surface distribution is not even. But fair? All players know the surface before hand and conditions are equal for all. It is rafa's fault if he decides to develop a game more suitable for clay.

Now you could say that if tomorrow suddenly, they said Roland garros is played on a HC, now that would be unfair.

The fact that Nadal moulded his game for clay is what has made him the RG goat, it is a choice he and Toni made and they should not blame the ATP for that. And why does Nadal complain about hC and then plays meaningless exos on HC?

I respect Toni for the work ethic and humility he instilled in Nadal and the great decision to make him lefty but other than that he's an idiot.

I can argue that the distribution not being even isn't fair. I don't think players just decide to develop their game for clay or whatever surface, but certainly especially for a surface that isn't the dominant one. If a player could just decide to develop a game more suitable to a surface, surely everyone would pick hard court. Surely Nadal couldn't just have won 7 Wimbledons had he just decided to mould his game for it.

I don't think Nadal moulded his game intentionally for clay. For that matter, he's on record around 2002 saying he liked better grass and carpet than clay.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

The fact is, most courts in the main tennis countries are hard court. You can't go and add clay court tournaments of any note in Australia, most of Asia or North America. So, the plausible alternative is adding them in Europe... that would be patently unfair considering a big part of tennis is adapting not only to conditions but also travel. If all the clay court tournaments were in Europe then the travel aspect would be minimal compared to the current hard swings which often vary half a world away week overt a period of a few weeks. So the fair (not to mention) practical way would be to have two clay swings - one where it is now and another later in the year.

Just bring some over here to South America.

Players whose best surface is clay have put their chips on the wrong number according to where points can be made - that is simply poor planning from a young age in players who are clay court specialists. You can't force the 'market' to be something it's not. There are more hard-courts spread further around the world than clay - trying to use the 'fairness' debate in terms of how the pro season is formulated is suspiciously self-serving. Muster did it as did some notable Spanish players previously. Amazingly, after all the significant changes which have been made which have been almost entirely to clay court players benefits - the almost blanket slowing of courts at APT events globally - they still want more clay.

Of course, a slow hard court is NOT clay.

As I said, I'm happy for there to more clay tournaments but only if the hard courts are sped up again and, while they're at it, Wimbledon should be reverted to pre 2000 conditions.

Under these theoretical changes Nadal would have no Wimbledons or US Open titles. He would actually be worse off in his achievements, not better. Sure, his knees might hold out longer.....

If anything it's the hard court players who have reason to gripe about court conditions on tour in the past decade. Many more players have been severely hindered by the significant slowing of hard courts than clay courters by lack of clay courts.

You cannot possibly know that. I'm sure I've read old threads here, and people were pretty certain Nadal wouldn't win Wimbledon or USO then.

[Gizo]

We all know that there is way too much hard court tennis, and especially too much slow hard court tennis.

Having such a high % of tournaments and big tournaments on the most damaging surface on the body is crazy.

In an ideal world there would only be one grand slam on hard courts and not two, and the Year End Championship would be on carpet.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Gizo

We all know that there is way too much hard court tennis, and especially too much slow hard court tennis.

No we all do not.

Originally Posted by Gizo

Having such a high % of tournaments and big tournaments on the most damaging surface on the body is crazy.

Playing 3.5 hr matches on slow clay is harder on the body than a 2hr matches on a rubberised hard court.

If the whole season was slow clay Nadal would still have developed the knee issues he has now. Notice how his knee issued typically flare up at the end of the clay court season and not the hard court swings?

[Gizo]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Playing 3.5 hr matches on slow clay is harder on the body than a 2hr matches on a rubberised hard court.

One of the reasons why Tennis Australia abandoned the rubberised Rebound Ace was the ridiculously high number of injuries that the surface caused, with many players rolling their ankles on it year after year. Players were complaining that their feet were still hurting for numerous days after the tournament finished.

Clay is much softer and easier on the joints than hard courts. That is why many older players in the US prefer to play on har-tru than hard courts, even if it doesn't suit their game as much.

And most of the hard courts used nowadays are slow, and a typical slow hard court match with long, gruelling rallies is going to give the body a far bigger pounding than a typical clay court match.

If the whole season was slow clay Nadal would still have developed the knee issues he has now. Notice how his knee issued typically flare up at the end of the clay court season and not the hard court swings?

No-one in their right mind thinks that the whole season should be slow clay

Nadal himself like many other players has wanted there to be many more grass court events, which would be ideal, but as we know that is not financially feasible.

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by Gizo

We all know that there is way too much hard court tennis, and especially too much slow hard court tennis.

Having such a high % of tournaments and big tournaments on the most damaging surface on the body is crazy.

In an ideal world there would only be one grand slam on hard courts and not two, and the Year End Championship would be on carpet.

no the yec in an ideal world wouldnt be on carpet..the players lobbied to have it removed from the tour because of injury /safety issues, so thats why it isnt used..so you would agree with that being so concerned with players health.

[Gizo]

Originally Posted by Goosehead

no the yec in an ideal world wouldnt be on carpet..the players lobbied to have it removed from the tour because of injury /safety issues, so thats why it isnt used..so you would agree with that being so concerned with players health.

No carpet was removed from the YEC after 1996 in favour of a hard court, because the surface used there in Germany during the early to mid 90s was so fast that many of the clay court players were complaining and saying it was unfair.

And it was removed from the Paris Masters after 2006 and from the tour completely a few years later, because players didn't want to have to keep on switching between hard courts and carpet between tournaments in the fall. In particular the top players didn't want to go from the Madrid masters on a medium pace hard court, to the Paris masters on fast carpet, and then to the YEC on a medium pace hard court again. Thus the Paris surface was made more similar to the YEC one from 2007.

Carpet is no more dangerous for the players than a typical hard court, and a thicker carpet surface is much safer than either thinner carpet (which was used at the YEC until 1996) or indoor hard.

Also carpet does not even have to play crazily fast anyway, as there are a few challenger tournaments around nowadays that are played on medium paced carpet. Also the Kremlin Cup in Moscow was notorious for using a pretty slow carpet surface for many years, before they made the switch to hard courts like several other events.

[Sabratha]

Toni most likely won't be getting his way.

[smoledman]

Nadal's entire game is built around his oversized Babolat racquet. Take that away and he's nothing.

[tennisMVP]

Originally Posted by smoledman

Nadal's entire game is built around his oversized Babolat racquet. Take that away and he's nothing.

I guess that's why every player on the ATP with an oversized Babolat has had the results of Nadal, right?

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by Gizo

No carpet was removed from the YEC after 1996 in favour of a hard court, because the surface used there in Germany during the early to mid 90s was so fast that many of the clay court players were complaining and saying it was unfair.

And it was removed from the Paris Masters after 2006 and from the tour completely a few years later, because players didn't want to have to keep on switching between hard courts and carpet between tournaments in the fall. In particular the top players didn't want to go from the Madrid masters on a medium pace hard court, to the Paris masters on fast carpet, and then to the YEC on a medium pace hard court again. Thus the Paris surface was made more similar to the YEC one from 2007.

Carpet is no more dangerous for the players than a typical hard court, and a thicker carpet surface is much safer than either thinner carpet (which was used at the YEC until 1996) or indoor hard.

Also carpet does not even have to play crazily fast anyway, as there are a few challenger tournaments around nowadays that are played on medium paced carpet. Also the Kremlin Cup in Moscow was notorious for using a pretty slow carpet surface for many years, before they made the switch to hard courts like several other events.

i was on about the tour in general not just the world tour finals..

anyway it dosnt matter what you think is good/bad to play on..the pro's lobbied to have carpet removed from the tour and it was...thats that.

maybe it'll come back..i doubt it, clay/grass/hardcourt are enough surfaces.

[Golden]

Originally Posted by tennisMVP

I guess that's why every player on the ATP with an oversized Babolat has had the results of Nadal, right?

Quick question. Who is that in your avatar?

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Gizo

One of the reasons why Tennis Australia abandoned the rubberised Rebound Ace was the ridiculously high number of injuries that the surface caused, with many players rolling their ankles on it year after year. Players were complaining that their feet were still hurting for numerous days after the tournament finished.

Far and away the biggest factor in the chance of courts was because rebound ace is the worst surface ever invented in terms of maintenance issues. They had to re-lay the courts pretty much annually because of the insane issues they had. My club (in Melb at the time) had those courts and they were most expensive mistake they ever made. Anything which was dropped on the court, or someone wearing hard-soled dress shoes or someone throwing a racquet etc would damage the surface. Air and moisture would get in and it was basically unrepairable. You couldn't fix a small patch of the court like you can grass/clay with and level of playing consistency so only Flinders Park as it was known then could afford to re-lay the courts each year. All the clubs which got them badly regretted ever getting them put down.

They heated up like crazy under the Aussie sun - I grant you that - but as for a notable increase in injuries being directly related to the surface, I call rubbish. I played on rebound ace courts for years without issue - they were less injury-causing than harder hard courts imo. I think the real reason the Aussie Open suffered from player complaints was the compounded issues of it often being extremely hot, the harsh sun conditions (amongst the lowest ozone level in the world in Australia - which wreaks havok for even tanned people) and the fact that it was one of the first tournaments of the year - many players were not fully match-fit yet and more injury prone. In fact non-acute injuries in the later rounds at the Aussie Open are still almost an annual happening. From memory moreso than at any of the other majors.

Originally Posted by Gizo

Clay is much softer and easier on the joints than hard courts. That is why many older players in the US prefer to play on har-tru than hard courts, even if it doesn't suit their game as much.

For sure... but match length and being injury prone are bigger factors in injury incidences than the surface.

Originally Posted by Gizo

And most of the hard courts used nowadays are slow, and a typical slow hard court match with long, gruelling rallies is going to give the body a far bigger pounding than a typical clay court match.

So the simpler, cheaper and more practical solution would be to speed up the hard court tournaments that are already out there, not replace them with tournaments which would ensure even more running about - even if clay is softer overall.

Speeding the hard courts would have the additional bonus over the "more clay courts" suggestion of making the tennis which was played and the options for having success more varied - and entertaining.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

I found this passage way more interesting:

I'm not sure what his aim was with this. Clearly, players have and are doping after Puerta (Odesnik).

I think he was referring to players of a certain level. The whole quote (he seemed to barely remember about Puerta's case):

Federer and Murray called for more blood tests at the end of the year, for tennis to be clean. Are they really necessary?
I don't anything of anyone, those in charge can do what they think they should. I'm calm and since I know Rafael is completely clean, I don't think it possible for anyone to dope. I can't get it into my head that someone would intentionally cheat. If the ATP considers it'd be better for doping security to increase testing, they can do what they think is right. I say: I can't get it into my head that anyone would intentionally dope.

But there are demonstrated cases.
In tennis?

Mariano Puerta, for example.
Yes. Puerta could have hurt us and it's a case I think it’s perfect. If he really doped, well sanction, goodbye, forgotten him and forgotten the issue. Now, since that case I don't remember tennis players having doped among the people who more or less play on the tour at a good level because it seems to me everybody is clean. We have many tests every year and I mean everyone on the tour. It's difficult to dope.