Nadal practicing on clay this morning

[dafinch]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Up until Madrid 2011, Eeyore had not won a masters outside of hardcourt in 3 years. He had also not won a masters anywhere for going on 2 years. Now we are in 2013 and Eeyore has not won a title outside of hardcourt for going on 2 years. Do you give him the same amount of crap you give Nadal?


Also, up until Madrid 2012, Fed had not won a masters title outside of hardcourt since he won Wimby 2009. That's 3 years. Do you give him the same amount of crap you give Nadal?


Murray has never won a title on clay, and has only 3 titles off of hardcourt over the course of his entire career. Do you give him the same amount of crap you give Nadal?

Well, THIS is a typically silly retort: first of all, I responded to a a poster crowing about Butt Picker's hard court prowess, and I responded to that point. Why don't you reel off the long list of top Slam winners whose results are more skewed towards dirt than BP? Why are you babbling about kinds of tournaments-like Masters-when I, clearly am talking about surfaces, and, btw, I notice you carefully avoid mentioning grass, do you know what the phrase "outside of clay" means?

Murray? When did HE get onto the list of great players? He's a choking whiner who finally fluked his way to a Slam. Another ridiculous point.

Try again...

[Mike Sams]

Originally Posted by dafinch

Well, THIS is a typically silly retort: first of all, I responded to a a poster crowing about Butt Picker's hard court prowess, and I responded to that point. Why don't you reel off the long list of top Slam winners whose results are more skewed towards dirt than BP? Why are you babbling about kinds of tournaments-like Masters-when I, clearly am talking about surfaces, and, btw, I notice you carefully avoid mentioning grass, do you know what the phrase "outside of clay" means?

Murray? When did HE get onto the list of great players? He's a choking whiner who finally fluked his way to a Slam. Another ridiculous point.

Try again...

Murray fluked his way to a Slam?????? Now I've heard it all. The guy made like 5 Slam finals and won a heck of a lot of Masters titles, beating Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic in the process. He made numerous Slam semis and quarters. He got it together at the USO and beat the world #1 Djokovic and also crushed the guy who beat Federer. How can Murray be considered a fluke Slam winner considering his results?

[dafinch]

Originally Posted by Mike Sams

Murray fluked his way to a Slam?????? Now I've heard it all. The guy made like 5 Slam finals and won a heck of a lot of Masters titles, beating Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic in the process. He made numerous Slam semis and quarters. He got it together at the USO and beat the world #1 Djokovic and also crushed the guy who beat Federer. How can Murray be considered a fluke Slam winner considering his results?

His 1-12 record in Grand Slam finals prior to the Open kinda gave an indication of Murray's "clutchness" or lack of same. But, this time, he plays Berdych on Saturday when, not one, but TWO tornadoes strike New York City-not exactly a usual occurrence, and they had the effect of negating a big weapon of Berydch-his serve. As for the final, the following excellent article alludes to similar unprecedented conditions, not to mention, an extra day of rest for the hypochondriac whiner:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...novak-djokovic

When you need wind conditions like those and an extra day of rest in a match that you squeeze out in 5 sets, I'd say that's the epitome of a fluke. Don't hold your breath waiting for Rat Boy to pile up more majors.

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by dafinch

His 1-12 record in Grand Slam finals prior to the Open kinda gave an indication of Murray's "clutchness" or lack of same. But, this time, he plays Berdych on Saturday when, not one, but TWO tornadoes strike New York City-not exactly a usual occurrence, and they had the effect of negating a big weapon of Berydch-his serve. As for the final, the following excellent article alludes to similar unprecedented conditions, not to mention, an extra day of rest for the hypochondriac whiner:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...novak-djokovic

When you need wind conditions like those and an extra day of rest in a match that you squeeze out in 5 sets, I'd say that's the epitome of a fluke. Don't hold your breath waiting for Rat Boy to pile up more majors.

0-4 record, where did you get this 1-12 garbage?

[edmondsm]

Originally Posted by smoledman

0-4 record, where did you get this 1-12 garbage?

I believe it's called trolling.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by Mike Sams

Murray fluked his way to a Slam?????? Now I've heard it all. The guy made like 5 Slam finals and won a heck of a lot of Masters titles, beating Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic in the process. He made numerous Slam semis and quarters. He got it together at the USO and beat the world #1 Djokovic and also crushed the guy who beat Federer. How can Murray be considered a fluke Slam winner considering his results?

Wow, you actually make sense here, lol. Maybe you can when it isn't about Nadal.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

Wow, you actually make sense here, lol. Maybe you can when it isn't about Nadal.

Unfortunately the same is applicable to you when the topic is Federer

[RAFA2005RG]

Nadal is going to have an incredible winning streak entering Wimbledon (or entering Queens), if all his events are going to be on clay. But I suspect he will play Indian Wells and/or Miami. He has a good record at both, and was in the final of both in 2011, and semi-final of both in 2012. And even though he began speaking of injury at 2012 Indian Wells, the problem most likely was a result of Australia, which is a non-issue this time thanks to an ideal holiday.

Being this fresh will give Nadal the opportunity to be in fairly good shape at the US Open and therefore another shot at THE RAFA SLAM in Australia 2014.

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Originally Posted by smoledman

0-4 record, where did you get this 1-12 garbage?

I believe he was referring to sets won and lost.

[dafinch]

Originally Posted by smoledman

0-4 record, where did you get this 1-12 garbage?

I'm sorry, 1-12 in sets played in Grand Slam Finals(which other posters were able to figure out, not that 0-4 is in actual matches is a sterling record, lol), so, not only did his lose every time until Fluke City, he wasn't even able to be competitive, he lost CRUSHINGLY.

[DRII]

Originally Posted by Mike Sams

Federer is the only man in 2012 who has won titles on hardcourts, grass and clay...all at the age of 31. All Nadal could win was clay. All Djokovic could win was hardcourts. And these guys are a whole generation younger.

Nadal was out half the year due to injury!

Did you forget

[DRII]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Up until Madrid 2011, Eeyore had not won a masters outside of hardcourt in 3 years. He had also not won a masters anywhere for going on 2 years. Now we are in 2013 and Eeyore has not won a title outside of hardcourt for going on 2 years. Do you give him the same amount of crap you give Nadal?


Also, up until Madrid 2012, Fed had not won a masters title outside of hardcourt since he won Wimby 2009. That's 3 years. Do you give him the same amount of crap you give Nadal?


Murray has never won a title on clay, and has only 3 titles off of hardcourt over the course of his entire career. Do you give him the same amount of crap you give Nadal?

Great retort Clarky!

shows the hypocrisy of many on this board

[edmondsm]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Up until Madrid 2011, Eeyore had not won a masters outside of hardcourt in 3 years. He had also not won a masters anywhere for going on 2 years. Now we are in 2013 and Eeyore has not won a title outside of hardcourt for going on 2 years. Do you give him the same amount of crap you give Nadal?


Also, up until Madrid 2012, Fed had not won a masters title outside of hardcourt since he won Wimby 2009. That's 3 years. Do you give him the same amount of crap you give Nadal?


Murray has never won a title on clay, and has only 3 titles off of hardcourt over the course of his entire career. Do you give him the same amount of crap you give Nadal?

Well there are many more HC tourneys then clay ones. If a player won Queens and Wimbledon every year but never anything else he would get a lot more crap then Nadal does.

[cluckcluck]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Nadal is going to have an incredible winning streak entering Wimbledon (or entering Queens), if all his events are going to be on clay. But I suspect he will play Indian Wells and/or Miami. He has a good record at both, and was in the final of both in 2011, and semi-final of both in 2012. And even though he began speaking of injury at 2012 Indian Wells, the problem most likely was a result of Australia, which is a non-issue this time thanks to an ideal holiday.

Being this fresh will give Nadal the opportunity to be in fairly good shape at the US Open and therefore another shot at THE RAFA SLAM in Australia 2014.

Bwahhahahhaha!!! He may enter IW/Miami but I don't think he'll win before his physicality forces him to withdraw.

Rafa Slam 2014? What drugs are you smoking?

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by edmondsm

Well there are many more HC tourneys then clay ones. If a player won Queens and Wimbledon every year but never anything else he would get a lot more crap then Nadal does.

Why does this matter? If Nadal is expected to win off of his best surface, then the rest of them should expected to do so also. What you said is just an attempt to excuse away the fact that the rest of them are surface specialists the same as Nadal. But for obvious reasons, they don't take as much crap for it because their best surface is hardcourt, which is seen as a superior surface to clay by the ****s here.

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Why does this matter? If Nadal is expected to win off of his best surface, then the rest of them should expected to do so also. What you said is just an attempt to excuse away the fact that the rest of them are surface specialists the same as Nadal. But for obvious reasons, they don't take as much crap for it because their best surface is hardcourt, which is seen as a superior surface to clay by the ****s here.

It does not matter in the broad sense but the point is, Nadal has more opportunities to win on his worst surface (hc) because there are a lot more hc tournaments on tour than Djokovic has the opportunity to win on his worst surface (grass.) Surely you can see that right?

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by cc0509

It does not matter in the broad sense but the point is, Nadal has more opportunities to win on his worst surface (hc) because there are a lot more hc tournaments on tour than Djokovic has the opportunity to win on his worst surface (grass.) Surely you can see that right?

Doesn't matter if there are more chances if it's his worst surface. It actually does him a huge disservice that the tour is dominated by hc like it is. Besides Nadal only fluked his way to any and all hc titles throughout his entire career, so why is he expected to beat pure hardcourt specialists like Eeyore, Fed, and Murray on his worst surface on a regular basis? They have it a lot easier when it comes to winning on clay because they only have one person standing in their way while Nadal has many. Same thing can be said for grass when it comes to beating Fed because grass has had no competition whatsoever for years.

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by DRII

Nadal was out half the year due to injury!

Did you forget

He played multiple tournaments on each surface, though.

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Doesn't matter if there are more chances if it's his worst surface. It actually does him a huge disservice that the tour is dominated by hc like it is. Besides Nadal only fluked his way to any and all hc titles throughout his entire career, so why is he expected to beat pure hardcourt specialists like Eeyore, Fed, and Murray on his worst surface on a regular basis? They have it a lot easier when it comes to winning on clay because they only have one person standing in their way while Nadal has many. Same thing can be said for grass when it comes to beating Fed because grass has had no competition whatsoever for years.

I disagree with you there. It does matter that there are more chances to win on hc, that is the way the tour is comprised and Nadal is a great so he will be judged more harshly in this area and should be. We are not talking about some scrub here. The tour is what it is and it is the same for all players. If Federer can be judged harshly for not winning more clay titles on tour and clay tournaments are less plentiful (and I agree that Federer should be judged harshly here), then Nadal should be judged harshly for winning so few hc tournaments when his chances to do so were more plentiful. That is just the way it works and fans have to accept that critique about Nadal imo.

Nadal did not fluke his hc wins, don't be silly, he has had some great hc wins.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by cc0509

I disagree with you there. It does matter that there are more chances to win on hc, that is the way the tour is comprised and Nadal is a great so he will be judged more harshly in this area and should be. We are not talking about some scrub here. The tour is what it is and it is the same for all players. If Federer can be judged harshly for not winning more clay titles on tour and clay tournaments are less plentiful (and I agree that Federer should be judged harshly here), then Nadal should be judged harshly for winning so few hc tournaments when his chances to do so were more plentiful. That is just the way it works and fans have to accept that critique about Nadal imo.

Nadal did not fluke his hc wins, don't be silly, he has had some great hc wins.

What if clay were as dominant as hardcourts are while hardcourts were marginalized like clay is?