Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
Why don't you consider blue clay Federer's best surface then? Just curious, as he has a 100% rate of conversion there.
This is a discussion of worst surfaces - not sure what best surfaces has to do with it. Re. Blue clay - same as red clay except blue. The issue at Madrid was that the surface was laid down poorly not the colour.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
It doesn't matter. In that case, you can argue blue clay is Nadal's and Djokovic's worst surface. And yes, it is a different surface whether it was intentionally or due to error, as it had a completely different consistency than red clay.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
You could argue it but I'd think somebody to be an absurd idiot for arguing so. I'd lend them more credence after we've seen enough instances in the same/similar conditions.
Not sure what you point is here. Are you saying it is impossible to determine a players worst surface? If that isn't what you are saying, what is your factual critique of my thought that Nadal worst condition/surface is indoor (which I base on the fact that his success rates are the least there). Let's keep the conversation going
(in full respect to you)
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
No, I do agree that Nadal's worst surface is indoor. It's just that you are ignoring that indoor is not represented in the slams, whereas the other surfaces are. Has indoor ever been represented in the slams, as a matter of fact? I'm not old enough to know.Not sure what you point is here. Are you saying it is impossible to determine a players worst surface? If that isn't what you are saying, what is your factual critique of my thought that Nadal worst condition/surface is indoor (which I base on the fact that his success rates are the least there). Let's keep the conversation going
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Indoors are conditions, not a surface. The surface is still either, clay, grass or hard. Nadal suffers in indoor conditions, more than outdoors, regardless of what surface is laid down.
I do agree with you to a certain extent now regarding the fact indoors isn't truly represented in slams, but the lines are not as clear cut as that. Nadal lost indoors to Rosol at Wimbledon, once that roof closed, Rosol entered God Mode. That very same event, in the final, Federer won the title indoors against Murray, as soon as that roof closed, it was one way traffic.
Nadal and Djokovic AO 12 concluded indoors. US Open Ashe is now already partially indoors, and as of next year, many key matches could be happening in indoor conditions. So, yes, while there is no out and out indoor slam, indoor slam matches do exists on multiple surfaces.
Levi_Ackerman
Legend
Clay is only statistically Roger's weakest surface. And the reason? This guy:
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
Yes, I can agree with this. I hadn't thought of the times some matches have been played with the roof on.
In principle I can agree with that, but then, shouldn't we consider Outdoors a different condition? How about Natural Surface (either grass or clay)?
Also maybe windy conditions. Or rain conditions (we know Djokovic does well in rainy conditions based on RG 2012.
See what my point is? If you say "Indoors" that brings some other considerations.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
^^ I hope I'm not trolling too much.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Yes, we should consider outdoors as different conditions. Conditions where wind, heat, sunlight can affect a player, are exclusively found outdoors.
Natural surface is nice way to say non-hard courts, but the difference between clay and grass is something which was like chalk and cheese, you just need to go back to Borg's era to see just how dramatically different it was.
Indoors are conditions, but not a surface. You can have indoor hard, where you get a true bounce each time, but as you have seen, you have indoor grass at Wimbledon, and I wouldn't say you get true bounces there on every ball.
There are too many grey area when disucssing this. Look at the outdoor conditions in IW, dry desert air, now compare that with the crazy humidity in Miami, making the ball heavier.
LOL, you don't need to apologize to me, what you do is hardly called trolling. You are one of the more decent posters here.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
Yes, I agree with this 100%. There are so many variables. I do see how indoor has a specific effect on how tennis is played, and how it suits some players more than others. And I really don't have any problem considering Indoor as a specific condition.
The thing is that if you are going to consider Indoor, then you also have to consider Outdoors as its own category. And to me, it's clear that Fed and Djokovic are far superior to Nadal indoors, whereas Nadal is superior to both of them outdoors. And then you have all the different variables that you talked about (humidity, maybe being the most important, but also height, as in Madrid).
HAHAHAHA. I kinda meant that apology as a joke. But thanks for your kind words. Knowing that I'm an even better poster than people like TMF makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
It is sad that Djokovic and Federer have only 1 French Open title combined to show for their quite solid clay performances. Both of them, especially Fed, were denied a couple of those titles by the almighty King of clay. Remember some big name stating once "In tennis, you have hard court specialists, clay court specialists, grass court specialists... and you have Roger Federer". Also IMO, Novak is not much better on grass than he is on clay despite having 3 Wimbledons and no French Opens.
In the end, I actually think Novak's and Roger's games on clay are better than Nadal's hard court game. It is just that Novak and Roger were not so dominant on their favorite courts (hard court and grass respectively) to deny Nadal winning those Majors. Nadal though was so dominant on clay, having a combined 11-1 H2H vs Fedovic at RG, with that one loss not resulting in Novak winning it this year.
Though Nadal would be the weakest guy for me in this discussion, he has the most titles on least favorite courts to show otherwise. So this is the most contradicting statement I have ever made, but that is tennis.
no, that's not tennis; that's fanboyism or hate in the inverse!
clearly you and the OP, and anyone else who goes about this discussion logically, is saying that Nadal is the best or at least most accomplished when it comes to this field of discussion.
he is the clear GOAT on his best surface and better than his main rivals when it comes to his results on his worst surface as compared to theirs.
its pretty simple...
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
And yet it still works out that Federer and Djokovic are better than Nadal on 2/3 surfaces. Interesting.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
indoors is not a surface!
at least try to be logical. do you think prime Nadal wouldn't be a clear favorite on an indoor clay court
if you and others are basically referring to the WTF, its not that its indoors its that its an extremely slow, dead bounce court that makes it relatively difficult for Nadal.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Between Federer, Nadal and Djokovic
10 AO titles, 10 RG titles, 12 W titles, 9 US Open titles, 10 WTF titles, 75 Masters titles, 11 years continuously holding world number one spot - These types of numbers can give you a nosebleed.
10 AO titles, 10 RG titles, 12 W titles, 9 US Open titles, 10 WTF titles, 75 Masters titles, 11 years continuously holding world number one spot - These types of numbers can give you a nosebleed.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
moderately better to a mere modicum advantage at best. while Nadal clearly and demonstrably dominates them on one slam surface and is much closer to them on the other two surfaces than they are to him on clay.
Nadal is the only one to have multiple slams on all surfaces!
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Nadal has had to defeat the other slam surface GOATs to win at least some of his slams on his 'lesser' slam surfaces!
same can't be said for Federer or Nole...
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
It's a crazy game this.
Nadal is better at dominating a particular surface, compared to Federer and Djokovic.
Federer is better at dominating two surfaces, compared to Nadal and Djokovic.
Djokovic is not the best at any surface, but ahead of Nadal on two of them.
All three ATGs.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Sure, although if we play that game, we can spin it in completely different directions as well.
In the end, they all beat the field to win the slams they won. Career names aren't the same as the level displayed at a specific moment.
I know that there is no indoor slam, but that fact is not relevant to this thread. The opening thread talked about the big three's weakest surface, it never restricted the discussion to the slams. The WTF has been played indoor all but a handful of times indoor, it is the fifth biggest tournament - and is relevant to our discussion.
For all the talk of 'indoors is not a surface' - well of course it isn't - but it is still a highly relevant condition. Also, when you look at most players tournament wins and it lists 'surface' next to the tournament - it almost always lists if it was indoor. Hence most statistical lists think indoor is relevant. Most players know it is highly relevant. Do you remember a number of years back people would say 'Federer is the best indoor player in the world' . Or 'Boris Becker is great indoors'. Why would the say that if it wasn't a relevant factor.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
Sure, I was nitpicking, I'll admit that much. I still think that if you account for "indoor" as a specific environment, then you should also account for "outdoor". Nadal is a very strong outdoor player, whereas Djokovic and specially Federer are stronger indoors.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
Yes, you convinced me. So you are saying that if a tournament is on hard AND indoor then it only counts as indoor? If so, that sounds fair. What you can't do is count victories on hard indoor as both hard and indoor, because then that is tainting the statistics.
indoors is not a surface!
at least try to be logical. do you think prime Nadal wouldn't be a clear favorite on an indoor clay court
if you and others are basically referring to the WTF, its not that its indoors its that its an extremely slow, dead bounce court that makes it relatively difficult for Nadal.
There are hard court, grass, clay and indoor season. You can't leave out one to suit your player.
And many indoor titles ?
mattosgrant
Banned
Djokovic could wind up being better than Federer on 2/3 as well.
mattosgrant
Banned
Carpet is a surface. Indoor is not. Indoor is a playing condition. Similar to red clay vs green clay, rebound ace vs decoturf, Queens grass vs rye grass. Today there is almost no carpet surface, although we could guarantee Nadal would be worse than Federer and Djokovic on it if there were.
Compare Nadal and Federer head to head on hard court (Nadal 9: Federer 6). Then seperate it between hard outdoor (Nadal 8: Federer 2) and hard indoor (Nadal 1: Federer 4). It then becomes very obvious that Indoor is a huge factor.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
Oh, yeah. I never had any doubts about that. It is obvious Nadal is not as good playing indoors as Fed and Djokovic.
Hence that is why I say - Nadal worst is Indoor, Federer's worst is Clay, Djokovic's worst is fast court (there aren't any fast courts anymore but a medium fast is Cincinatti)
^^ I hope I'm not trolling too much.
LOL, I saw you posting that dog pic a lot. Thanks for the gif. That's a trollish dog. I wonder if his master is the Poobah himself.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
LOL. Yes, I can see Sureshs teaching that dog a few new tricks.LOL, I saw you posting that dog pic a lot. Thanks for the gif. That's a trollish dog. I wonder if his master is the Poobah himself.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
In principle, I agree. It's hard not to, really. Results are results.
Similar threads
