Did nadal benefit from a weak clay era?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Towser83

of course NA can't see my post but looked up Vilas's H2H with Borg and on clay it's 2-11, Fed's vs Nadal is 2-12. I do agree Federer gave better matches though.

Also Vilas won the US Open on clay. Ok not red clay, but still a type of clay.

It really is deceptive to just look at the scorelines of Borg vs. Vilas clay-court matches. They played a very similar style and had epic rallies, it's just that Borg was usually a bit better at everything. This resulted in one-sided scorelines, but they certainly didn't feel like thrashings. Nadal and Federer do not have similar gamestyles.

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by Mustard

It really is deceptive to just look at the scorelines of Borg vs. Vilas clay-court matches. They played a very similar style and had epic rallies, it's just that Borg was usually a bit better at everything. This resulted in one-sided scorelines, but they certainly didn't feel like thrashings. Nadal and Federer do not have similar gamestyles.

Nadal has rarely trashed Federer on clay.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by smoledman

Nadal has rarely trashed Federer on clay.

When did I say otherwise?

[NadalAgassi]

It is funny to see from other peoples quotes that people I even clearly identify in my signature as having on my ignore list like Cup8489 and abmk continue to make replies to my posts. What a couple of desperate losers. All I will say is I never said Roddick was a talentless hack, nor did I specifically say he would never win another major in another era. Some people need to learn basic reading skills. I said that a 1 or 2 slam winner, which is what Hewitt and Roddick are, is an accurate measure of their abilities, and that is what they would win in most eras. Aka for those who need it spelled out, they are roughly the same level of other 1 or 2 slam winners of recent times like Rafter, Kafelnikov, Muster, Bruguera, Stich, and the like. The idea they are the caliber of 4 or 5 slam winners and that is what they should be evaluated as with the without Federer excuse line attached (and any second tier top player of their era wins alot more majors with a Sampras, Borg, Laver, or whomever was the Federer and Nadal of their eras removed in some useless hypothetical anyway), and that is what they would win in most other eras, is typical ****om fantasy. End of.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by abmk

hey, clueless Nadalagassi, whether or not you have me in your ignore list , I',m gonna have fun ripping apart your biased posts ......deal with it ....

he doesn't have us on his ignore list. He's replied to multiple posts of mine since i ended up in his 'ignore list', and always with an insult. Sometimes I wonder how he sticks around, when it seems almost every post he makes contains some sort of disrespect.

He also calls us desperate when he can't refute what we say. Just because we don't agree with the Notion that we should be kissing Rafa's feet or the idea that Federer won his slams in a weak era doesn't mean we deserve to be insulted by a man who can't even do a decent job of hiding his own ridiculous bias. At least I don't go around calling him a *******, though he clearly is.

[SoBad]

Originally Posted by smoledman

Nadal has rarely trashed Federer on clay.

That's true, Federer has thoroughly dominated Nadal over the years, especially on clay.