How many former FO titlists Nadal have defeated to win 8 FOs?

Parera enjoyed weak clay field in last decade?

  • Total voters
    25
rh310

rh310

Hall of Fame
Djokovic2011 said:
That depends on whether or not you're including the pre Open era. Since 1968 I'd include him among the top 10 greatest players so to say he is far, far short of such status is just silly.
Click to expand...

<Shrug>. You're entitled to your opinion.

Top 10 since 1968? I dunno, that's not usually how people think about these things.

Becker, Borg, Courier, Wilander, Lendl, Connors, Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Edberg, Kurten,...all better in my mind than Djokovic at this point in his career, and that's 12. And I didn't even put McEnroe on the list, and I'm sure I've left out at least two or three others.

Nothing against him and defensive tennis in general. But I see him as Michael Chang with the benefit of better training, equipment, and tennis physique.
 
Last edited:
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
moonballs said:
I was joking about the weak field logic, just to show Nadal fans the weak field theory can be applied to any dominant player. There is no weak or strong fields. All fields should be viewed as constant and any individual player measured against the field.
Click to expand...

I feel like the whole thread is a joke against the kind of arguments that are used against Fed. However, Mustard is not one of the posters who denigrates other players in order to make a hated player look weaker. It is unfortunate that he seems to have taken the brunt of the crap from this thread when most of the true targets are nowhere to be found.
 
Djokovic2011

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
rh310 said:
<Shrug>. You're entitled to your opinion.

Top 10 since 1968? I dunno, that's not usually how people think about these things.

Becker, Borg, Courier, Wilander, Lendl, Connors, Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Edberg, Kurten,...all better in my mind than Djokovic at this point in his career, and that's 12. And I didn't even put McEnroe on the list, and I'm sure I've left out at least two or three others.

Nothing against him and defensive tennis in general. But I see him as Michael Chang with the benefit of better training, equipment, and tennis physique.
Click to expand...

The fact that you have Courier and "kurten" above Djokovic tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of tennis history. Thanks for the laugh though!
 
poofytail

poofytail

Banned
anantak2k said:
Except for the fact that people would be looking at Roddick from a different perspective. As a multiple grand slam (say 3-5 and it would definitely include multiple Wimbledon titles) champion he would be looked at as say a tier 3 great or somewhere in that range.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt be so sure on that. He would be more likely looked at in a Jim Courier like vein, a very hard working huge overachiever. Most people would say Murray is easily a better player than Courier (not greater, but better) even if he never plays another match, despite that at this moment he is far less accomplished. I dont think people would look at a servebot winning 4 or 5 slams (remember he didnt even have a good forehand anymore after 2004) as indicative of a strong era, quite the opposite.
 
Last edited:
rh310

rh310

Hall of Fame
Djokovic2011 said:
The fact that you have Courier and "kurten" above Djokovic tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of tennis history. Thanks for the laugh though!
Click to expand...

Yep, you got me. Left out the "e". That of course completely invalidates anything I might say, right?

(By the way, homes, the reliance on ad hominem is the sure sign of a person who doesn't have many facts on his side. Go ahead, look it up.)

(Nevermind, I've done it for you. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html )
 
Last edited:
Dilettante

Dilettante

Hall of Fame
Maybe it's because English is not my mother language, but when I read "titlist"... somehow I expected another kind of thread.
 
rh310

rh310

Hall of Fame
Djokovic2011 said:
Lol I haven't got a clue what you're going on about...
Click to expand...

Well, I guess you shouldn't have slept through high school then.

Wait: You're not still in grade school, are you? If so, my bad.

At any rate, you've won the battle of the keyboards!!! Go rip your shirt off and yell at the top of your lungs. Arrrghghghhghagh!!! rip rip rip stomp stomp glare glare arghshhshghhsher!!!

You are the keyboard champion!!!
 
Djokovic2011

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
rh310 said:
Well, I guess you shouldn't have slept through high school then.

Wait: You're not still in grade school, are you? If so, my bad.

At any rate, you've won the battle of the keyboards!!! Go rip your shirt off and yell at the top of your lungs. Arrrghghghhghagh!!! rip rip rip stomp stomp glare glare arghshhshghhsher!!!

You are the keyboard champion!!!
Click to expand...

Nope I didn't sleep through school but I'd give anything to go back there, they were carefree times and happy days. And I hope the weather is alright in NY at the moment- it is absolutely horrendous where I am. :(
 
Steve0904

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
rh310 said:
Well, I guess you shouldn't have slept through high school then.

Wait: You're not still in grade school, are you? If so, my bad.

At any rate, you've won the battle of the keyboards!!! Go rip your shirt off and yell at the top of your lungs. Arrrghghghhghagh!!! rip rip rip stomp stomp glare glare arghshhshghhsher!!!

You are the keyboard champion!!!
Click to expand...

In Djokovic2011's defence, I don't see how anybody can put a guy who 3 majors all at RG over a guy who's won 6 including a Wimbledon and a USO. Has spent more time at #1 than said guy, and has more Year end championships than said guy. Same basically goes for Courier. If you're only going by the "eye test" in your determination of who's "better" than who then I guess that's ok, but I don't think many people would consider Courier or Kuerten better under that criteria either.
 
Last edited:
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
Steve0904 said:
In Djokovic2011's defence, I don't see how anybody can put a guy who 3 majors all at RG over a guy who's won 6 including a Wimbledon and a USO. Has spent more time at #1 than said guy, and has more Year end championships than said guy. Same basically goes for Courier. If you're only going by the "eye test" in your determination of who's "better" than who then I guess that's ok, but I don't think many people would consider Courier or Kuerten better under than criteria either.
Click to expand...

I agree, I'm not sure why rh310 went off the rails.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
rh310 said:
Nothing against him and defensive tennis in general. But I see him as Michael Chang with the benefit of better training, equipment, and tennis physique.
Click to expand...

ha ha , wait, what ?

djokovic a better version of chang ?

I've seen many ridiculous posts on this forum, but surely this one has to be at the very top ...

ha ha ha
 
FreeBird

FreeBird

Legend
rh310 said:
<Shrug>. You're entitled to your opinion.

Top 10 since 1968? I dunno, that's not usually how people think about these things.

Becker, Borg, Courier, Wilander, Lendl, Connors, Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Edberg, Kurten,...all better in my mind than Djokovic at this point in his career, and that's 12. And I didn't even put McEnroe on the list, and I'm sure I've left out at least two or three others.

Nothing against him and defensive tennis in general. But I see him as Michael Chang with the benefit of better training, equipment, and tennis physique.
Click to expand...

Stop trolling. What's next?? Isner is Rod laver with better training, equipment and tennis physique? :lol:
 
Last edited:
rh310

rh310

Hall of Fame
^^^ Djokovic is a tireless set of wheels and solid ground strokes. There's no tennis genius in there, as there is with almost every other player I mentioned (e.g., I don't think Lendl was much of a tennis genius either).

I've seen both Djokovic and Chang play at the peak of their skills (2011 and 1996, respectively), and the parallels to me are obvious. Sorry if that opinion ruffles the fanboys.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
rh310 said:
^^^ Djokovic is a tireless set of wheels and solid ground strokes. There's no tennis genius in there, as there is with almost every other player I mentioned (e.g., I don't think Lendl was much of a tennis genius either).

I've seen both Djokovic and Chang play at the peak of their skills (2011 and 1996, respectively), and the parallels to me are obvious. Sorry if that opinion ruffles the fanboys.
Click to expand...

Here's a tip : djokovic can dictate play with his groundstrokes. Chang couldn't. Its a night and day difference.

Here's another ..Pre-2011 djokovic was far from a tireless set of wheels. In 07-08, he was in fact, an aggressive baseliner.

And I'm far from being a djokovic fan .
 
Last edited:
rh310

rh310

Hall of Fame
abmk said:
Here's a tip : djokovic can dictate play with his groundstrokes. Chang couldn't. Its a night and day difference.

Here's another ..Pre-2011 djokovic was far from a tireless set of wheels. In 07-08, he was in fact, an aggressive baseliner.

And I'm far from being a djokovic fan .
Click to expand...


Chang was more than capable of dictating points against players. Not all of them, of course, but his winner count was always > 0 and he knew how to end a point when the chance presented itself to do so with minimal risk.

Sorry, but nothing you've said is inconsistent with my statement that give Chang better training and kit and you've got Djokovic.

2011 Djokovic was the best form of Djokovic. If you just want to appeal to his aggressive baseline game, then frankly I think Courier would have wiped the court with him with pure pugnacity, and Chang would have worn him down. And as cleanly as he hits the ball, no one has hit it cleaner than Agassi.

Speaking of Agassi, I think he and Djokovic are similar in one other way: Here, in the middle of his career, I never get the feeling that Djokovic loves tennis. I don't even think he likes it very much. Yes, he likes the adulation, the money, and the indulgent lifestyle. I have successful Serbian friends who know him, and they speak very highly of him. So I don't think he's a bad guy or anything. Just that tennis is more of a meal and fame ticket for him than something he truly loves.

Agassi admitted the same about himself -- that until the very end of his career, he pretty much hated tennis even as he pulled down millions a year and was a household name.

You may not agree with me, but we both know we wouldn't change each other's minds if we went on for hours about it. So let's not, eh?
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
rh310 said:
Chang was more than capable of dictating points against players. Not all of them, of course, but his winner count was always > 0 and he knew how to end a point when the chance presented itself to do so with minimal risk.
Click to expand...

how many players end matches with winner count = 0?

no, chang did NOT and could not dictate play - with aggression. It was his biggest weakness. He did not have the firepower. It had *NOTHING* whatsoever to do with the equipment.

Its a night and day difference as far as djokovic and chang are concerned as far as dictating play goes.

rh310 said:
Sorry, but nothing you've said is inconsistent with my statement that give Chang better training and kit and you've got Djokovic.

2011 Djokovic was the best form of Djokovic. If you just want to appeal to his aggressive baseline game, then frankly I think Courier would have wiped the court with him with pure pugnacity, and Chang would have worn him down. And as cleanly as he hits the ball, no one has hit it cleaner than Agassi.
Click to expand...

nadal couldn't wear 2011-early 12 djokovic down, chang wouldn't either. djokovic at his best would blast him off court, no question.

courier would probably win at the FO , but would have to give the edge to djoker anywhere else

there is a better version of chang in the 2000s and here's a hint , he's an Aussie.

as far a worse version of chang is concerned, you've got David Ferrer.

rh310 said:
Speaking of Agassi, I think he and Djokovic are similar in one other way: Here, in the middle of his career, I never get the feeling that Djokovic loves tennis. I don't even think he likes it very much. Yes, he likes the adulation, the money, and the indulgent lifestyle. I have successful Serbian friends who know him, and they speak very highly of him. So I don't think he's a bad guy or anything. Just that tennis is more of a meal and fame ticket for him than something he truly loves.

Agassi admitted the same about himself -- that until the very end of his career, he pretty much hated tennis even as he pulled down millions a year and was a household name.

You may not agree with me, but we both know we wouldn't change each other's minds if we went on for hours about it. So let's not, eh?
Click to expand...

absolutely ridiculous comparision.

djokovic and agassi are the ones closest game-wise and not djokovic-chang.

as far as passion for the game is concerned, djokovic and agassi are very different from one another
 
Last edited:
S

Start da Game

Hall of Fame
Mustard said:
This is entering into fantasy land. If there was no Nadal, then Federer would probably have about 5 French Open titles, and Djokovic would probably have 1 too. Would that make it a "stronger" era?
Click to expand...

exactly this and exactly that is what happened from 2004 - 2007 with federer on non clay surfaces......nadal is just several levels above players like federer, djokovic on clay.......federer was a level or two above players like roddick, hewitt etc......big difference and a failed attempt of fedtars to disprove the weak era theory......
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
Start da Game said:
exactly this and exactly that is what happened from 2004 - 2007 with federer on non clay surfaces......nadal is just several levels above players like federer, djokovic on clay.......federer was a level or two above players like roddick, hewitt etc......big difference and a failed attempt of fedtars to disprove the weak era theory......
Click to expand...

peak nadal is better on clay than federer on grass or fast HC, but not that by that much ; upsets also occur more frequently on the faster surfaces.

and one day, maybe Mustard will also tell you that he thinks that the weak era theory posted by Sampras fans like you is pure BS.

If anything sampras had it easier than federer and of course much easier than the players in the end of 80s,early 80s and mid-80s with borg/connors/lendl/mac & lendl/becker/edberg/wilander respectively.

moya getting to #1 ? kafelnikov after 7 losses in a row getting to #1 ? :lol
agassi not being a serious contender for slams in 93, 96,97 and 98 - 4 of pete's best years. LOL !

federer has had to face agassi like player in djokovic (peaks not coinciding is more than compensated by djokovic still denying a slam winning form federer multiple times ) AND of course nadal.

the competition is quite clearly more than sampras' - whose only disadvantage was the more variety in courts & styles of players.

of course that does not excuse his sh*t performance on clay for an all time great -- when agassi in the same time made multiple finals at all slams and won each of them, when lendl, borg, mac, edberg etc. before sampras atleast had one or more real shot at winning their weakest slams.
 
Last edited:
R

Ramesh848

Banned
Start da Game said:
exactly this and exactly that is what happened from 2004 - 2007 with federer on non clay surfaces......nadal is just several levels above players like federer, djokovic on clay.......federer http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13 a level or two above players like roddick, hewitt etc......big difference and a failed attempt of fedtars to disprove the weak era theory......
Click to expand...

Sorry, it's just nonsense.

Old man bagelled Parera on clay, as a underdog.

So according to your definition several levels above any player means getting bagels and bakery products from underdog? and also 5 year older undedog?

So weak era champion, fast court specialist can bagel clay goat?

Have you ever seen Roddick, Hewitt giving bagels to Fed?

On the other side Fed gave two bagels to Hewitt in AO final 2004.


Parera's Second opposition was Djokovic, a hard court specialist. Still mauled prime Parera thrice on clay since 2011.

Luckily surviving hard court specialist on clay in 5 sets, with the help of Nets and Maria means that Several levels ahead?
 
R

Ramesh848

Banned
Mustard said:
Federer has been beaten 5 times by Nadal at the French Open. Same with Djokovic, who has also been beaten 5 times by Nadal at the French Open.
Click to expand...

Nothing special in beating Hard/Court specialist on clay.

If he have to deal with player like Kuerten's potential instead of Fed/Djoko he would be sitting on 4-5 FOs.

Even Fed would have beaten him in 2011 and 13 if they are of same age.

No one is denying his excellence on clay but his achievement on clay fades as he never faced clay court specialist with great potential.

Now don't come with crap Ferrer is clay court specialist, he still don't have masters trophy on clay, let alone 3 FOs like Kuerten.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
It is unfortunate that threads like this are getting made, and not just for Nadal but for Federer also. Their sustained excellence is what has made their respective runs at the top so darn insane, that it does boggle the mind...and even more so, that we saw both happen in tandem.

The Fed haters and Nadal haters take peace from saying that both thrived in weak era conditions. A nice way to put down the player you have dislike for. Say it loud enough and long enough, and it opinion becomes reality. Was the level really that low, or were they just so good?

The haters will always say Federer and Nadal had it easy. But to do what they have done requires a truly special talent. They are two of the greatest of all time, that cannot be denied.
 
M

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Start da Game said:
ever wondered why almost nobody really disputes nadal's clayGOATness but tons and tons of posters argue against federer's GOATness?
Click to expand...

Which is silly, as there are basically the same arguments against both. Just as Federer isn't the GOAT, Nadal isn't the clay GOAT (of course, the fact that there can't be any GOAT probably helps). ;)
 
M

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
rh310 said:
<Shrug>. You're entitled to your opinion.

Top 10 since 1968? I dunno, that's not usually how people think about these things.

Becker, Borg, Courier, Wilander, Lendl, Connors, Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Edberg, Kurten,...all better in my mind than Djokovic at this point in his career, and that's 12. And I didn't even put McEnroe on the list, and I'm sure I've left out at least two or three others.

Nothing against him and defensive tennis in general. But I see him as Michael Chang with the benefit of better training, equipment, and tennis physique.
Click to expand...

Well, McEnroe should of course be ahead of Djokovic, but Courier and Kuerten, definitely not. Even Becker and Edberg are debatable. But there were also a truckload of players pre-open era who were better than him, at least accomplishment-wise, that's why having him as one of the top two players in history with Federer is quite ludicrous.
 
rh310

rh310

Hall of Fame
merlinpinpin said:
Well, McEnroe should of course be ahead of Djokovic, but Courier and Kuerten, definitely not. Even Becker and Edberg are debatable. But there were also a truckload of players pre-open era who were better than him, at least accomplishment-wise, that's why having him as one of the top two players in history with Federer is quite ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Yes, completely agree. I was attempting to swing at a curve ball ("Djoko is in top 10 since 1968") and am not totally happy with the improvisation I came up with.

Although I do think Courier and Kuerten would have played him very tough. Prime Edberg and Becker too.

But we'll never know. :)
 
R

Ramesh848

Banned
Mustard said:
No. You have failed to prove that Nadal isn't just that good on clay. I can point to Nadal's 8 French Open titles to back up my point.
Click to expand...

That directly gives idea about Parera's competition on clay in last decade.

Are Fed, Djoko are strong opponents on clay?

In 2006 and 2007 Fed lost to Parera at FO and came back to win Wimbledon beating Parera In each final proves that Fed
have the game to oust Parera on fast courts but not on Clay.

Djoko gave tough fight to Parera since his rise but still not great competition as Old Fed beat him in 2011 when he was at peak. How Djoko is great competition on clay if lost to Someone at peak, who have lost 4 finals at FO to Parera?

Parera struggled against Djoko because they are of same generation. Parera's 3 victories were against developing Djoko.


Parera is lucky for not getting clay court specialists as opponent at FO even more lucky as Fed is 5 year older than him, who was his main opposition at FO.
 
Last edited:
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Borg didn't dominate an especially tough clay era either. Most of the posts in this thread are garbage. Yes Federer's worst surface is clay but it's Djokovic's second best. I'd still rank Federer in the top 10 of clay courters in the open era. Ahead of the likes of Courier and even Vilas in terms of level of play.

I agree that if Federer's competition is questioned then so must Nadal's. But I think it's better for everyone if we just accept that Nadal is the greatest clay courter ever and it's unlikely any individual player other than Borg could have dented his clay exploits. Likewise Federer at his beast was simply a monster and would have collected large amounts of slams in any era.
 
Death Master

Death Master

Banned
if nadal chooses soccer as a profession than roger is sitting on 6 French Opens.

roger was phenomenal on clay. nadal just happens to be on another level.

most informed experts know and understand that tennis is in its golden age. it does not get any tougher than this.

it is nearly impossible to win a masters level tournament today, let alone a slam.
 
tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
NatF said:
Borg didn't dominate an especially tough clay era either. Most of the posts in this thread are garbage. Yes Federer's worst surface is clay but it's Djokovic's second best. I'd still rank Federer in the top 10 of clay courters in the open era. Ahead of the likes of Courier and even Vilas in terms of level of play.

I agree that if Federer's competition is questioned then so must Nadal's. But I think it's better for everyone if we just accept that Nadal is the greatest clay courter ever and it's unlikely any individual player other than Borg could have dented his clay exploits. Likewise Federer at his beast was simply a monster and would have collected large amounts of slams in any era.
Click to expand...

Borg had Panetta, Connors, Vilas, Nastase, Orantes, Ramirez. He raised his level at the FO but other clay tournaments they have multiple wins over Borg and were legitimate contenders.

The 4th best player in Nadal's era is yet to win a ATP 250.

How is Novak's second best surface clay when he has just 1 final to show ? On grass he has won 1 wimbledon and another final.

Federer and Novak's least preferred surface is clay based on actual records. Now, Who is the next best player in ATP whose favorite surface is clay ?

Ferrer ? Almagro ? Fognini ?

Wow ! what tough competition !
 
Last edited:
R

Ramesh848

Banned
Death Master said:
if nadal chooses soccer as a profession than roger is sitting on 6 French Opens.

roger was phenomenal on clay

most informed experts know and understand that tennis is in its golden age. it does not get any tougher than this.

it is nearly impossible to win a masters level tournament today, let alone a slam.
Click to expand...

If Federer have decided to play Cricket Hewitt, Roddick, both are sitting on 5-6 slam, and Fed would have made 101 Hundreds combining ODI and Tests.

And what it means "nadal just happens to be on another level."

Chucklehead English. :)
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
tennisaddict said:
Borg had Panetta, Connors, Vilas, Nastase, Orantes, Ramirez. He raised his level at the FO but other clay tournaments they have multiple wins over Borg and were legitimate contenders.

The 4th best player in Nadal's era is yet to win a ATP 250.

How is Novak's second best surface clay when he has just 1 final to show ? On grass he has won 1 wimbledon and another final.
Click to expand...

Nastase was basically done by the mid 70's and Connor's skipped the FO 5 years in a row 74-78. As for the rest of those players I don't think any of them are better than Federer on clay or maybe even Djokovic. Perhaps Borg has the edge in quantity but I'm unconvinced his overall competition on clay was noticably superior.

Djokovic is clearly better on clay, if he had prime Federer to deal with on grass he'd have no titles on grass at all.
 
SLD76

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
tennisaddict said:
Borg had Panetta, Connors, Vilas, Nastase, Orantes, Ramirez. He raised his level at the FO but other clay tournaments they have multiple wins over Borg and were legitimate contenders.

The 4th best player in Nadal's era is yet to win a ATP 250.

How is Novak's second best surface clay when he has just 1 final to show ? On grass he has won 1 wimbledon and another final.

Federer and Novak's least preferred surface is clay based on actual records. Now, Who is the next best player in ATP whose favorite surface is clay ?

Ferrer ? Almagro ? Fognini ?

Wow ! what tough competition !
Click to expand...



Fact: Nadal is beast on clay, as evidenced by owning Fed on the surface at a time when Fed dominated everyone but Nadal.

Fact: In this era of homogenization and slowed courts, there are no 'specialists' anymore. Used to be guys could carve out a niche on the tour and concentrate on surfaces played on their preferred surfaces. Clay, HC, indoor, grass.

Now with slower courts, guys give equal time to all surfaces, although clay may be a preferred surface.


The competition nadal played against seems to have clay as their weaker surface and/or they matchup worse against nadal on clay than anywhere else ( djoker aside) i.e. guys like Davydenko, Delpo, Federer, Murray, Ferrer. All these guys have big wins over Nadal on HC and grass, but match up worse against him, on clay, where Nadal is best.

So that said, you could make the argument that the field has been relatively weak on clay since Nadal's dominance. Relative to Nadal's greatness of course.
 
poofytail

poofytail

Banned
abmk said:
djokovic and agassi are the ones closest game-wise and not djokovic-chang.
Click to expand...

Agassi was not a top level defender at all. He was a good grinder in an offensive minded way in his later years due to his supreme fitness and amazing consistency and ball control, but he never had the speed to be a very good defensive player. That makes him a World of difference in playing style from Djokovic who is one of the best defensive players of all time. I dont think Djokovic is too similar to either Chang or Agassi, but in a way one could argue he is closer to Chan in playing style since both are known as defensive players and agressive counterpunchers first, and in Djokovic case an agressive baseliner too but that is 2nd.
 
R

Ramesh848

Banned
SLD76 said:
Fact: Nadal is beast on clay, as evidenced by owning Fed on the surface at a time when Fed dominated everyone but Nadal.

Fact: In this era of homogenization and slowed courts, there are no 'specialists' anymore. Used to be guys could carve out a niche on the tour and concentrate on surfaces played on their preferred surfaces. Clay, HC, indoor, grass.

Now with slower courts, guys give equal time to all surfaces, although clay may be a preferred surface.


The competition nadal played against seems to have clay as their weaker surface and/or they matchup worse against nadal on clay than anywhere else ( djoker aside) i.e. guys like Davydenko, Delpo, Federer, Murray, Ferrer. All these guys have big wins over Nadal on HC and grass, but match up worse against him, on clay, where Nadal is best.

So that said, you could make the argument that the field has been relatively weak on clay since Nadal's dominance. Relative to Nadal's greatness of course.
Click to expand...


Still courts aren't homogenized yet still, that can be called equally slow as clay.

If this is homogenized era, then why Parera got mauled by Belgian plumber last year or couldn't survive in first week of Wimbledon in last 2 years?

Why Murray lost to Djoko in last year's AO final and straight setted him at Wimbledon Final?

Fed is great player but 5 year older than Parera, do you really think Parera would have dominated Fed on clay if they both are of same age?

Federer would've mauled 2011 and 2013 versions of Parera if they are of same age at least.

Djoko isn't great competition on clay either, he still have just 1 final at FO, lost even to old Fed when he was at peak.

He is having 2 Finals at Wimbledon, with 1 title proves grass is second best surface, statistically.

Parera's other competition is laughable like all time greats like Ferrer, Almagro. ( Clay death logic :) )
 
poofytail

poofytail

Banned
SLD76 said:
The competition nadal played against seems to have clay as their weaker surface and/or they matchup worse against nadal on clay than anywhere else ( djoker aside) i.e. guys like Davydenko, Delpo, Federer, Murray, Ferrer. All these guys have big wins over Nadal on HC and grass, but match up worse against him, on clay, where Nadal is best.
Click to expand...

None of those guys you mentioned have any success vs Nadal on grass except for Federer. Even Murray, by far the 2nd best and 2nd best grass player of that group, is 1-10 in sets vs Nadal at Wimbledon and on grass. Granted had a couple of them (Murray and maybe Del Potro) been lucky enough to play the Nadal of 2012-2013 on grass when he was losing to Rosol and Darcis they could have done something, but that isnt saying much. The Nadal of 2006-2011 spanks all those (apart from Federer) on grass.
 
tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
poofytail said:
None of those guys you mentioned have any success vs Nadal on grass except for Federer. Even Murray, by far the 2nd best and 2nd best grass player of that group, is 1-10 in sets vs Nadal at Wimbledon and on grass. Granted had a couple of them (Murray and maybe Del Potro) been lucky enough to play the Nadal of 2012-2013 on grass when he was losing to Rosol and Darcis they could have done something, but that isnt saying much. The Nadal of 2006-2011 spanks all those (apart from Federer) on grass.
Click to expand...

Rafa was lucky not to have met Roddick on grass during this period, at least for the first few years. (2005-10)
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
tennisaddict said:
Rafa was lucky not to have met Roddick on grass during this period, at least for the first few years. (2005-10)
Click to expand...

Roddick of 03-04 and 09 would have had a shot against some versions of Rafa on grass from 06-11 (perhaps most of them). But Roddick of 05, 06, 08 and 10 would be beaten quite handily. In 2007 Roddick was playing quite well, might have had a shot against 07 Rafa outside the final and 2006 and potentially 2011 Nadal.

At their best I think Nadal beats Roddick 7 times out of 10 on grass. Maybe 6-4 against 2004 Roddick.

Roddick has a similar advantage over Murray and Djokovic on grass IMO.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
tennisaddict said:
Rafa was lucky not to have met Roddick on grass during this period, at least for the first few years. (2005-10)
Click to expand...

Possibly true. Roddick has an excellent record at Wimbledon and would have been a very stern test for Nadal. He was a high calibre grass-court player who reached three finals in a six-year span (in this same span Nadal also reached three finals).
 
tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
beast of mallorca said:
Roddick ? Really ? That's the best you have? :twisted::twisted:
Click to expand...

If Novak is the clay competition for Nadal, then Roddick is 10 times that for Nadal on grass. 2010 old age Roddick beat Nadal and 2012 Retired Roddick beat Fed on hard.

Prime Roddick was a beast who unfortunately had to face the God every time.
 
beast of mallorca

beast of mallorca

G.O.A.T.
tennisaddict said:
If Novak is the clay competition for Nadal, then Roddick is 10 times that for Nadal on grass. 2010 old age Roddick beat Nadal and 2012 Retired Roddick beat Fed on hard.

Prime Roddick was a beast who unfortunately had to face the God every time.
Click to expand...

If that One Dimensional lap dog is your go-to guy on grass, then I feel sorry for you.......:twisted:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GoldenMasters
Nadal will NOT win FO 2021
2 3
Replies
126
Views
5K
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
Backspin1183
  • Poll
How many French Open titles will Nadal end his career with?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Federer20042006
Federer20042006
Tennisanity
Would Nadal have won any FOs if he had to face Djoker 2.0 like today?
Replies
29
Views
1K
Fedeonic
Fedeonic
panatta
Potito Starace defeated Moya
Replies
13
Views
939
Potito
Potito
Gonzalito17
Former WTA pro suspect Djok tanked to Kei for UNIQLO
Replies
14
Views
1K
Gonzalito17
Gonzalito17
Top