Would Federer Have Reclaimed No. 1 if not for the Blue Clay?

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

If they didn't add the roof to wimbledon and the blue clay to Madrid? Highly doubt it.. Has Fed shown he can win big titles on slow surfaces over the past few years? Nope

didnt he beat nadal in the semis of the swirling winds of the slow IW...and go on to beat Isner who handed djoko his walking papers?

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by SLD76

didnt he beat nadal in the semis of the swirling winds of the slow IW...and go on to beat Isner who handed djoko his walking papers?

i repeat.. Has Fed won any big titles the last few years on slower surfaces?? I saw nothing from Fed the past few years that makes me think Fed would have reclaimed Number 1 if they didn't screw with the clay in madrid or put the roof on Wimbledon.. He wouldn't have won Madrid most likely and surely wouldn't have gotten through Nole and Nadal (who I think would have no doubt been in the finals if they didn't add the roof and up the surface speed of wimbledon). Heck I don't even think he would have gotten by Nole in the semis if they didn't close the roof.

Fed's main big tournaments wins has come under faster conditions (Madrid, Wimbledon with the roof closed and those YEC titles)

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

i repeat.. Has Fed won any big titles the last few years on slower surfaces??

last time I checked, IW wasnt a 250.

again, he beat nadal in the semis...I believe it was in straights?

[ctoth666]

Look, what I'm saying is that the blue clay at Madrid was one of the most bizarre changes of fate I've witnessed in ten years of following professional tennis. The roof at Wimbledon was a logical decision and it's been in place for several years. The distribution of clay and hard court events has been steady over the past decade or more. Etc. The blue clay was a huge curveball that was ultimately a failed experiment, but it clearly favored Federer over his main competition. This is certainly different than suggesting that Federer would be number one if not for Djokovic's return down match point or whatever else you can think of. And honestly it's well within the possibility that the roof being closed at Wimbledon contributed to his success, and to say otherwise would be ignorant. Maybe if that roof doesn't close, Nadal makes it through to the final and beats Federer? I know it's all hypothetical, but you can't argue that there are an increasing number of variables that have come into play and I can't say that it has been a good thing.

Yeah Federer's number one, but because of some pretty exceptional circumstances and I'd argue that he doesn't truly deserve it.

[augustobt]

Originally Posted by SLD76

last time I checked, IW wasnt a 250.

again, he beat nadal in the semis...I believe it was in straights?

In very windy conditions... a funny fact, once it was against "the best wind player ever"

[Rhino]

Would Rafa Have ever been No. 1 if not for the Red Clay?

If red helped Rafa and blue helped Fed, then it looks like Rafa got the better deal in tennis.

[Agassifan]

Pathetic. Sore. Losers.

[King Roger]

Fed managed to adapt to the new blue clay, whereas other players like Nadal and Djokovic were complaining. This makes him better than those two.

[doobiedoodoo]

Would Nadal be able to hit with so much topspin without the improvement in racquet and string technology in the last 10 years?

[kishnabe]

Not Federer fault that Nadal lost to Verdasco and Djokovic lost to Tipsarevic?

Federer deserved the title since he adapted or at least got through the horrendous situation.

Federer deserves the number one ranking for his onslaught for this year but for 12 months I would say Djokovic is the true number one.

When Djokovic loses that US Open, and Nadal does take the title at the US Open.....then Federer by all means is Number One in everyone eyes.

[scineram]

Once you had you're eyes checked, check this out!

[The tennis guy]

Originally Posted by ctoth666

Yeah Federer's number one, but because of some pretty exceptional circumstances and I'd argue that he doesn't truly deserve it.

Keep wasting your time, and arguing Federer doesn't deserve No. 1. Federer can't sleep because you think he doesn't deserve it.

[SQA333]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

i repeat.. Has Fed won any big titles the last few years on slower surfaces?? I saw nothing from Fed the past few years that makes me think Fed would have reclaimed Number 1 if they didn't screw with the clay in madrid or put the roof on Wimbledon.. He wouldn't have won Madrid most likely and surely wouldn't have gotten through Nole and Nadal (who I think would have no doubt been in the finals if they didn't add the roof and up the surface speed of wimbledon). Heck I don't even think he would have gotten by Nole in the semis if they didn't close the roof.

Fed's main big tournaments wins has come under faster conditions (Madrid, Wimbledon with the roof closed and those YEC titles)

Yes he has. Indian Wells is considered quite a slow hard court. We'll count the Australian Open in 2010 if you want, too.

[roysid]

This is the second time I have seen Federer achieving something which was deemed close to impossible.

1) First - winning the French Open.
2) Becoming No.1 again after falling so way behind to No. 4. Many things went his way then, not just blue clay. All those titles he won. Madrid, was not his fault because Djkokovic/Nadal were playing with -ve mindset.

At wimbledon, had to be in Djokovic's half to stop him at semis(720 - 2000 = -1280 ) for djokovic. And Fed gained (2000 - 360 = 1680) points.

[BreakPoint]

Here's a better question:

Would Nadal have even turned pro if ALL clay tournaments had switched to blue clay 10 years ago?

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by ctoth666

Look, what I'm saying is that the blue clay at Madrid was one of the most bizarre changes of fate I've witnessed in ten years of following professional tennis. The roof at Wimbledon was a logical decision and it's been in place for several years. The distribution of clay and hard court events has been steady over the past decade or more. Etc. The blue clay was a huge curveball that was ultimately a failed experiment, but it clearly favored Federer over his main competition. This is certainly different than suggesting that Federer would be number one if not for Djokovic's return down match point or whatever else you can think of. And honestly it's well within the possibility that the roof being closed at Wimbledon contributed to his success, and to say otherwise would be ignorant. Maybe if that roof doesn't close, Nadal makes it through to the final and beats Federer? I know it's all hypothetical, but you can't argue that there are an increasing number of variables that have come into play and I can't say that it has been a good thing.

Yeah Federer's number one, but because of some pretty exceptional circumstances and I'd argue that he doesn't truly deserve it.

Are you sure you've been following professional tennis for ten years? Because if you have, you would have noticed that the Madrid Masters turned from being an indoor hardcourt tournament to a outdoor clay tournament four years ago. Now if that is not more of a drastic change than merely changing the color of the court, I don't know what is.

So which would have favored Federer more? Indoor hardcourts or outdoor blue clay courts?

BTW, I have news for you. Blue clay is here to stay. It will be at Madrid again next year and I hope all other clay tournaments will soon adopt it, just like all harcourt tournaments switched to blue hardcourts. It's simply much easier to see the ball on TV with blue courts than with orange courts. Increasing TV viewership is a good thing for pro tennis.

[Sentinel]

"Cry me a river" as my esteemed friend Clarky would say

[Bartelby]

The blue clay and the roof were definitely things that went Federer's way, but it doesn't always go his way.

Blue clay, by the way, is not going to happen next year according to the ATP.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by ctoth666

Yeah Federer's number one, but because of some pretty exceptional circumstances and I'd argue that he doesn't truly deserve it.

Some pretty exceptional circumstances? Oh, yeah, you mean he was the only one to win on all surfaces/conditions this year (outdoor HC, indoor HC, clay, and grass) while Djokovic only won on outdoor HC and Nadal only won on clay?

You're right, winning on one surface only and tanking matches/boycotting tournaments that don't play to your strengths would be so much more deserving of the #1 spot...

[Colin]

Originally Posted by ctoth666

But it puts more emphasis on the Madrid blue clay fiasco.

The real fiasco was refusing to switch to blue clay after giving us that tantalizing little tournament — offering a refreshing break from the ruddy, plodding tedium only to send us back to weeks more of molasses tennis. It's a cruel tease akin to handing out free bites of filet mignon at Burger King then forcing everyone to return to their Whopper value meals.