Can we all agree that Rafa on clay is the scariest thing in tennis, bar none?

[BlueClayGOAT]

For the record, I still think Federer is the GOAT- for whatever that's worth. Comparisons across eras are difficult at best and impossible at worst, so I don't know how much meaning that GOAT title holds in a non-trivial, absolute sense. He's certainly the greatest of the modern era- by which I mean since about 1990, when counting Slams became the norm, and the ATP took sole control of organizing the men's tour and the game solidified into the form we see today. There have been relatively few major changes since then- except poly strings in the late 1990s and the general slowing down of courts from the mid-2000s.

Fed being the greatest still does not mean that he was the most dominant on a single particular surface. On grass and HC, he was the best- and by a large distance on grass- but that still pales in comparison to Rafa on clay. This does not disparage either player's greatness.

This should be pretty easy to understand for anyone who can read and understand basic math. It's very simple.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Several of my threads were on the first page till yesterday. I don't know which one you are referring to. If you could stop being so obtuse and just say which one, we could move the discussion forward.
Stopped caring about what you think my intentions are now. I was polite and reasonable in the face of baseless accusations for quite a while with you, but you obviously don't deserve that respect. Do you take pride in being unpleasant to people on here?

I have quoted you, so you know which one.

The reality is that you are the one obtuse on purpose and now, after you went through the customary moves you have given yourself the permission to go full ahead with the trolling, I am thrilled to know that you are exactly what you said you aren't.

I am wondering though: do you really think that going through the motions makes any difference?

I mean, you are sitting somewhere in front of a computer and do this over and over again.

Do you have no self-esteem to continue with this?

And please don't tell me that it is because it is someone else's fault.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I think Tennis Elbow, ACL tear, and Mononucleosis are scarier.

 

[TennisRookie]

Can we all agree that brand new users should stop making so many threads about settled debates?

Debate? There was never debate that peak rafa on clay was practically unbeatable

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Regarding my earlier posts, peak Rafa at RG may well be a more daunting prospect because some players probably thought they had at least a puncher's chance vs peak Fed on the more marginal grass of Wimbledon. Even Pete won by rather fine margins a fair amount of the time.

 

[MeatTornado]

Debate? There was never debate that peak rafa on clay was practically unbeatable

Back around 06-07 it was definitely a debate around here about if Rafa on clay was more dominant than Roger on grass. Rafa has long surpassed Fed's grass achievements so its not a debate anymore, but it definitely used to be.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Back around 06-07 it was definitely a debate around here about if Rafa on clay was more dominant than Roger on grass. Rafa has long surpassed Fed's grass achievements so its not a debate anymore, but it definitely used to be.

So, everyone is happy and can go on with their lives.

I mean, if Nadal fans are of the same position why make such threads?

 

[BlueClayGOAT]

I have quoted you, so you know which one.

The reality is that you are the one obtuse on purpose and now, after you went through the customary moves you have given yourself the permission to go full ahead with the trolling, I am thrilled to know that you are exactly what you said you aren't.

I am wondering though: do you really think that going through the motions makes any difference?

I mean, you are sitting somewhere in front of a computer and do this over and over again.

Do you have no self-esteem to continue with this?

And please don't tell me that it is because it is someone else's fault.

Responded to that post in the other thread. Had missed it before.
As for the allegations of having multiple accounts, I'm not going to respond to them. You are free to believe what you want.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Responded to that post in the other thread. Had missed it before.
As for the allegations of having multiple accounts, I'm not going to respond to them. You are free to believe what you want.

You are free to tell me what I am free to think.

Most importantly, you are free to look every morning in the mirror and tell yourself what you are going to do that day.

I wish you a lot of fortitude to not hate what you see.

 

[E36BMWM3]

If that says it all, why does this thread exist?

... Well, some people are just plain stupid

 

[BlueClayGOAT]

10 RGs does not, in fact, say it all IMO. That's very simplistic. Fed has approached that fairly closely at Wimby with 8 and is still going.
It's the fact that Rafa lost just 2 matches in 13 years despite playing against some very, very good players, and a couple of all-time greats.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

... Well, some people are just plain stupid

 

[Surecatch]

Rafa may not be the most versatile tennis player ever (which in itself is a bit of a laugh, since he did manage to win Slams on 3 surfaces in a calendar year), but if Earth had to challenge aliens at a sport, we would choose Rafa Nadal on clay in a best of 5 match. Discuss.

I'd be afraid they'd get impatient with his stalling tactics and incinerate us with an interstellar death beam.

 

[Gazelle]

Yep. The 2010 FO:

Vamos!

Soderling was injured in that match. Otherwise he would have crushed Nadal like he did the year before, when he showed who was boss.

 

[smoledman]

TBH I feel that Roger's dominance as of early 2005 and 2005 Miami loss to Federer is what spurred Rafa to dominate 2005 clay season. Fed's continued dominance outside of clay continued to provide huge motivation. After Fed's fade(2010), Djokovic's 2011 season provided the impetus for renewed motivation to dominate on clay. In fact I'd say that accounts for 2012-2014 domination. 2017 is 'by the script' because of Fed's early season domination once again providing the motivation for Rafa to dominate on clay again.

Federer & Nadal are the yin & yang of tennis.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Went back and watched that point. The call was definitely wrong. The ball hit on the back half of the line but was in for sure. I don't think it's fair to say Djoker knew whether or not it was in. Consider the chair agreed with the linesman... Djoker was focused on blocking the bounce back not exactly where it landed. Not sure why Stan didn't challenge, was he out?

Regardless, the point wouldn't have ended there, Stan needed to finish a somewhat short ball or they'd have replayed it if the call had simply been corrected. Actually watching g again it seems the lineman call affected Djoker's swing so it should have been replayed. Still... it was BP 2nd serve. Even if Stan had won the point (no guarantee) he needed to consolidate. Lol, lotsa factors in this one. I'll give you that it probably ranks even higher than USO'15 as slams Djoker probably shouldn't have won.

Why on earth shouldn't Djokovic have won the '15 US Open?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

He is. He is already a legend on clay. No one comparable on any surface. 10 in one slam proves it.

Federer has 10 slams on HC, 6 WTF on HC, a bucket load of masters on HC, and the competition is significantly more deeper on HC than on clay, and for quite a substantial period of that time, he had to fight off another GOAT on HC in Djokovic.

Nadal is the greatest at any one particular slam, I will give you that. His RG record is insane, but Federer's 10 HC slams on three different HC surfaces, having won five in a row at USO, is certainly comparable in terms of accomplishments.

Sampras was almost untouchable on the fast grass of Wimbledon. Put peak Pete on a fast grass court, and you will see just how hard it is to beat that monster.

So, I will respectfully disagree. They are players who are comparable imo, but yes, Nadal is top of the list for single surface champion, just not leaps and bounds ahead.

 

[octobrina10]

Soderling was injured in that match. Otherwise he would have crushed Nadal like he did the year before, when he showed who was boss.

Hahahaa! Soderling was well enought to crush Fed in QFs.
And Rafa crushed Soderling again 3 weeks later - in the 2010 Wimbledon QFs.

Rafa was diagnosed with knee tendonitis after the 2009 FO and he skipped Wimbledon because of that.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Hahahaa!

And thus the story about not investing emotional energy on Federer or such has been proven to be a fake one.

You are also a fake apart from being found out to lie and be a closet hater.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Back around 06-07 it was definitely a debate around here about if Rafa on clay was more dominant than Roger on grass. Rafa has long surpassed Fed's grass achievements so its not a debate anymore, but it definitely used to be.

Erm... heard from a friend?

 

[MeatTornado]

A) Nadal started playing it at 19 and won it. At 19, 20, 21 Federer was losing easily at Wimbledon.

B) I disagree. If Nadal wasn't forced to withdraw due to injury he would have probably won RG.

C) Nadal just won this year his most dominant RG so he's showing no signs of slowing down. Nadal at RG cannot be compared to anything else including Federer.

I also forgot to add that the only 2 players who managed to beat Nadal at RG are actually 1-3 (Soderling) and 1-6 (Djokovic) against him there. So he even owns at RG both players who managed to beat him.

My point in 2016 wasn't that he couldn't have won it if healthy, not at all. It was that by "withdrawing" after a win, he avoided an official loss in the 3rd round, meaning his record if he had played through the injury would've been 79-3 instead of 79-2

 

[MeatTornado]

Erm... heard from a friend?

I'm a long, lonnnnng time lurker around here.

 

[abmk]

no.
most dominant on a single surface ? yes
most frustrating to play against ? yes

scariest to play against ? no

guys like federer, sampras, mac, becker etc. on the faster surfaces are scarier when on a roll.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

I'm a long, lonnnnng time lurker around here.

One day I'll get a handle on that phenomenon. Same Q as I asked another former lurker then: what was the final straw?

 

[Chadillac]

Having to shake his hand after 3 hours of butt picking is the scariest thing in tennis

 

[TennisATP]

My point in 2016 wasn't that he couldn't have won it if healthy, not at all. It was that by "withdrawing" after a win, he avoided an official loss in the 3rd round, meaning his record if he had played through the injury would've been 79-3 instead of 79-2

Maybe he would have still won it. He withdrew out of precaution because the doctors told him that there's a risk of worsening the injury so he didn't take the chance. But he could have continued playing and still won it, but he decided to play it safe and withdrew. He easily won the first matches so obviously he was not that bothered, it was just a precaution for the long term of his career. Maybe if he decided to continue he would have been fine and won RG 2016 and then took a break right after, who knows.

 

[MeatTornado]

Maybe he would have still won it. He withdrew out of precaution because the doctors told him that there's a risk of worsening the injury so he didn't take the chance. But he could have continued playing and still won it, but he decided to play it safe and withdrew. He easily won the first matches so obviously he was not that bothered, it was just a precaution for the long term of his career. Maybe if he decided to continue he would have been fine and won RG 2016 and then took a break right after, who knows.

“One of the toughest press conferences of my career,” said Nadal, who was seeded fourth. He said he could no longer hit his signature shot — his whipping topspin forehand — without major pain.

“It’s obvious if it’s not Roland Garros, I will probably not take the risks of playing the first two days,” he said. “But it’s the most important event of the year for me, so we tried our best. We take risks yesterday. That’s why we played with anesthetic injection, so without feeling at all in the wrist. But you know when I am coming to Roland Garros, I am coming thinking about winning the tournament. To win the tournament, I need five more matches, and the doctor says that’s 100 percent impossible.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/...dal-out-of-french-open-with-wrist-injury.html

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Maybe he would have still won it. He withdrew out of precaution because the doctors told him that there's a risk of worsening the injury so he didn't take the chance. But he could have continued playing and still won it, but he decided to play it safe and withdrew. He easily won the first matches so obviously he was not that bothered, it was just a precaution for the long term of his career. Maybe if he decided to continue he would have been fine and won RG 2016 and then took a break right after, who knows.

Withdrawing while in the tournament is considered an automatic loss.

 

[MeatTornado]

Withdrawing while in the tournament is considered an automatic loss.

Not officially

 

[vex]

Why on earth shouldn't Djokovic have won the '15 US Open?

Been discussed a lot. Each player has slams they won that you have to be honest and say was at least partially a fluke. During that '15 USO match djoker was outplayed by Fed... until break point. Fed got a ridiculous number of BP opportunities and converted basically none. Djoker got like a couple and converted them. Now that's a credit to ND for being the mentally tougher opponent... but if we're being honest with ourselves it ranks near the top of any list of Slams Djoker probably had some good luck in winning.

 

[GOATzilla]

Federer has 10 slams on HC, 6 WTF on HC, a bucket load of masters on HC, and the competition is significantly more deeper on HC than on clay, and for quite a substantial period of that time, he had to fight off another GOAT on HC in Djokovic.

Nadal is the greatest at any one particular slam, I will give you that. His RG record is insane, but Federer's 10 HC slams on three different HC surfaces, having won five in a row at USO, is certainly comparable in terms of accomplishments.

Sampras was almost untouchable on the fast grass of Wimbledon. Put peak Pete on a fast grass court, and you will see just how hard it is to beat that monster.

So, I will respectfully disagree. They are players who are comparable imo, but yes, Nadal is top of the list for single surface champion, just not leaps and bounds ahead.

Although your argument does hold value, but there's only one clay slam. Imagine if there were 2 clay slams like there are 2 HC slams. Surely Rafa would've had >10 Slams on one surface.

From what we've seen, no one comes even close to greatness/ability on one surface, as Rafa on clay.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Not officially

Officially your opponent has proceeded to the next stage/has won the tournament.

What you are describing is how the statistics view that situation, which is irrelevant for this conversation.

 

[guanzishou]

For once I totally agree

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Although your argument does hold value, but there's only one clay slam. Imagine if there were 2 clay slams like there are 2 HC slams. Surely Rafa would've had >10 Slams on one surface.

From what we've seen, no one comes even close to greatness/ability on one surface, as Rafa on clay.

Here is the thing, you are talking hypothetical, and we can talk that way all day. More clay slams also means games more suited to playing on clay. HC is most dominant surface, it has the most depth, you are making an assumption the depth remains the same, if the tour was swapped around.

So, I will disagree with you. The tour is what it is. Federer's HC competition is deeper than Nadal's clay competition. Lets stick with what is, the talk is about surface, NOT about dominance of a particular slam. If it is just about one slam, then Nadal. But you talk surface, then bring everything on that surface into account, and Federer dominated everywhere, under all conditions.

And likewise, take a look at Sampras on fast grass, crazy depth of fast grass court specialists and he takes 7 of 8 of those titles. So, to say peak Sampras on fast grass also does not come close to Nadal on clay is too far fetched for me. Nadal greatest single surface champion, but I will not ack him as being leaps and bounds above certain other monsters on their surfaces.

And suppose we had two grass slams still? Imagine the numbers Sampras and Federer would have then...so lets keep hypotheticals out and focus on what the tour actually is.

 

[NoleFam]

Been discussed a lot. Each player has slams they won that you have to be honest and say was at least partially a fluke. During that '15 USO match djoker was outplayed by Fed... until break point. Fed got a ridiculous number of BP opportunities and converted basically none. Djoker got like a couple and converted them. Now that's a credit to ND for being the mentally tougher opponent... but if we're being honest with ourselves it ranks near the top of any list of Slams Djoker probably had some good luck in winning.

I get that some fans were disappointed by that loss but Djokovic was up 5-2 in the 4th before a late resurgence by Federer, regardless of the break point opportunities missed earlier. He really should have ended it there and served it out. Not to mention he had the whole stadium against him in that match and it took enormous mental strength to win that one. When you have the whole crowd cheering for you and against your opponent and you still don't win, then all you can say is well done and walk away. That win was absolutely deserved.

 

[GOATzilla]

Here is the thing, you are talking hypothetical, and we can talk that way all day. More clay slams also means games more suited to playing on clay. HC is most dominant surface, it has the most depth, you are making an assumption the depth remains the same, if the tour was swapped around.

So, I will disagree with you. The tour is what it is. Federer's HC competition is deeper than Nadal's clay competition. Lets stick with what is, the talk is about surface, NOT about dominance of a particular slam. If it is just about one slam, then Nadal. But you talk surface, then bring everything on that surface into account, and Federer dominated everywhere, under all conditions.

And likewise, take a look at Sampras on fast grass, crazy depth of fast grass court specialists and he takes 7 of 8 of those titles. So, to say peak Sampras on fast grass also does not come close to Nadal on clay is too far fetched for me. Nadal greatest single surface champion, but I will not ack him as being leaps and bounds above certain other monsters on their surfaces.

"Competition is deeper" is such a subjective statement that i wouldn't even get into it. All the European players are born and bred on clay.

The fact remains that Federer and Nadal had more or less the same players to compete for titles on HC and clay. Nadal managed to win RG 10 times, and Federer 5 times each at AO and USO.

Don't get me wrong, both are outstanding achievements. But in the history of the sport, Federer is NOT the only player to win AO or USO 5 times. However, Rafa is the only player to win a slam as many as 10 times.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Been discussed a lot. Each player has slams they won that you have to be honest and say was at least partially a fluke. During that '15 USO match djoker was outplayed by Fed... until break point. Fed got a ridiculous number of BP opportunities and converted basically none. Djoker got like a couple and converted them. Now that's a credit to ND for being the mentally tougher opponent... but if we're being honest with ourselves it ranks near the top of any list of Slams Djoker probably had some good luck in winning.

Nope, I really couldn't disagree with you more (sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who actually watched that '15 USO final). I'll never understand how a player can win a match in 4 sets and anyone say he was lucky to win it afterwards. And don't give me all this "Fed got a ridiculous number of BP opportunities" nonsense. How on earth does failing to convert so many break point chances make him the more deserving winner?! That just sounds totally whack to me.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

"Competition is deeper" is such a subjective statement that i wouldn't even get into it. All the European players are born and bred on clay.

The fact remains that Federer and Nadal had more or less the same players to compete for titles on HC and clay. Nadal managed to win RG 10 times, and Federer 5 times each at AO and USO.

Don't get me wrong, both are outstanding achievements. But in the history of the sport, Federer is NOT the only player to win AO or USO 5 times. However, Rafa is the only player to win a slam as many as 10 times.

You still don't get it. The discussion is about SURFACE not who dominated which slams. No one in their right mind would say anyone dominated a slam to the same level that Nadal dominated RG. But, if you are going to talk surface, then Federer has 10 slams, no matter which way you cut it, 6 WTF and significant number of HC titles. Now, if you say there is more HC than clay, allowing Federer to shine more, and what about clay getting the same time? Well, what if Grass got the same amount of time, imagine peak Fed and Sampras and what they would do.

The subject is about surface, NOT about a particular slam. You and I are talking two different things. Nadal is the greatest single surface champion, but he is not a country mile ahead as some are stating.

 

[GOATzilla]

You still don't get it. The discussion is about SURFACE not who dominated which slams. No one in their right mind would say anyone dominated a slam to the same level that Nadal dominated RG. But, if you are going to talk surface, then Federer has 10 slams, no matter which way you cut it, 6 WTF and significant number of HC titles. Now, if you say there is more HC than clay, allowing Federer to shine more, and what about clay getting the same time? Well, what if Grass got the same amount of time, imagine peak Fed and Sampras and what they would do.

The subject is about surface, NOT about a particular slam. You and I are talking two different things.

Federer has had 2 opportunities to win HC slams in a calendar year. Rafa gets one opportunity for a clay slam.
Please tell me again how it's been harder for the former.

 

[NoleFam]

Nope, I really couldn't disagree with you more (sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who actually watched that '15 USO final). I'll never understand how a player can win a match in 4 sets and anyone say he was lucky to win it afterwards. And don't give me all this "Fed got a ridiculous number of BP opportunities" nonsense. How on earth does failing to convert so many break point chances make him the more deserving winner?! That just sounds totally whack to me.

Yea not when it's 6-4 5-7 6-4 6-4, when it should have been 6-4 5-7 6-4 6-2. I could see if the sets were closer but Djokovic just kind of cruised on through them and not to mention he was completely outplayed in set 2 and still made him win it 7-5..lol. Even in the first set he was cruising pretty well until that nasty fall on the damp court. I think a lot of people just can't understand how Federer can lose when he plays that well but it shows you just how much they underestimate Djokovic and his will.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

You still don't get it. The discussion is about SURFACE not who dominated which slams. No one in their right mind would say anyone dominated a slam to the same level that Nadal dominated RG. But, if you are going to talk surface, then Federer has 10 slams, no matter which way you cut it, 6 WTF and significant number of HC titles. Now, if you say there is more HC than clay, allowing Federer to shine more, and what about clay getting the same time? Well, what if Grass got the same amount of time, imagine peak Fed and Sampras and what they would do.

The subject is about surface, NOT about a particular slam. You and I are talking two different things. Nadal is the greatest single surface champion, but he is not a country mile ahead.

Since the subject is about a surface and to compare 2 players fair, you have to compare how many times they had the chance to win on that surface.

 

[TheAssassin]

I get that some fans were disappointed by that loss but Djokovic was up 5-2 in the 4th before a late resurgence by Federer, regardless of the break point opportunities missed earlier. He really should have ended it there and served it out. Not to mention he had the whole stadium against him in that match and it took enormous mental strength to win that one. When you have the whole crowd cheering for you and against your opponent and you still don't win, then all you can say is well done and walk away. That win was absolutely deserved.

He also had that fall early in the 1st set. Djokovic certainly didn't have everything going his way in that final. Well deserved win, he had some far closer escapes at Slams than that one, and he is a very clutch player to be fair so people shouldn't act like he was just handed those wins.

"Competition is deeper" is such a subjective statement that i wouldn't even get into it. All the European players are born and bred on clay.

The fact remains that Federer and Nadal had more or less the same players to compete for titles on HC and clay. Nadal managed to win RG 10 times, and Federer 5 times each at AO and USO.

Don't get me wrong, both are outstanding achievements. But in the history of the sport, Federer is NOT the only player to win AO or USO 5 times. However, Rafa is the only player to win a slam as many as 10 times.

That's true to a certain extent, but in recent times more players prefer hard courts than clay courts. At least the best ones do. That's why hard court has deeper competition despite having the same names competing on it.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Federer has had 2 opportunities to win HC slams in a calendar year. Rafa gets one opportunity for a clay slam.
Please tell me again how it's been harder for the former.

We are not talking who dominated a particular slam here, but surface accomplishments. Please don't talk hypothetical, we can do IF and could've, would've, should've until the cows come home. I am only going to talk about what actually exists on the tour. Nadal is the greastest single surface champion, I do not disagree, but I will not put him so high above others.

I ask again, what would happen if there were still two fast grass slams during Sampras' time then, or two grass slams during Federer's peak years. It didn't happen, so I will not think about, when discussing real accomplishments.

 

[NoleFam]

He also had that fall early in the 1st set. Djokovic certainly didn't have everything going his way in that final. Well deserved win, he had some far closer escapes at Slams than that one, and he is a very clutch player to be fair so people shouldn't act like he was just handed those wins.

I agree and I brought up that bad fall in my previous comment. It was a well deserved win and definitely no fluke.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Since the subject is about a surface and to compare 2 players fair, you have to compare how many times they had the chance to win on that surface.

Are you telling me that Nadal on clay is leaps and bounds ahead of Federer on HC? Not just better, but insanely better? Because that is where I am going to disagree, and I will not change my opinion on it. Nadal is better, no doubt about it, greatest single surface champion, cannot be argued, but to say Federer on HC is not even comparable with his longevity, versatility, and ability to win every single big title on HC, no less than 5 at each of the AO, USO and WTF, is where I roll the eyes. Federer is not chopped liver on HC.

And likewise, Sampras was a monster on fast grass, I like to see anyone say, he is leagues behind Nadal on dominating a particular surface.

 

[Charlie]

He also had that fall early in the 1st set. Djokovic certainly didn't have everything going his way in that final. Well deserved win, he had some far closer escapes at Slams than that one, and he is a very clutch player to be fair so people shouldn't act like he was just handed those wins.

That's true to a certain extent, but in recent times more players prefer hard courts than clay courts. At least the best ones do. That's why hard court has deeper competition despite having the same names competing on it.

That's an understatement (again ). No wonder Fed and Novak didn't win even more on their preferred surface.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Are you telling me that Nadal on clay is leaps and bounds ahead of Federer on HC? Not just better, but insanely better? Because that is where I am going to disagree, and I will not change my opinion on it. Nadal is better, no doubt about it, greatest single surface champion, cannot be argued, but to say Federer on HC is not even comparable with his longevity, versatility, and ability to win every single big title on HC, no less than 5 at each of the AO, USO and WTF, is where I roll the eyes. Federer is not chopped liver on HC.

And likewise, Sampras was a monster on fast grass, I like to see anyone say, he is leagues behind Nadal on dominating a particular surface.

Many players say Rafa on clay is the toughest task to handle.
I believe so too, hence everything.
That was the OP question. But of course people have different opinions, though overall Rafa is an icon on clay, no one right there.
And his career is not over.

 

[MeatTornado]

One day I'll get a handle on that phenomenon. Same Q as I asked another former lurker then: what was the final straw?

My frustrations finally reached a boiling point this year when Federer was dominating. I was really embarrassed by my fellow Fed fans in here, acting like hot **** after a couple good months. Everyone was acting like Fed winning 5 straight games in January had completely re-written the past. The amount of disrespect a lot of them were showing towards Rafa (and Novak) was pathetic.

It made me want to finally contribute and try to make this place a little more even-keel. Obviously that's subjective, so I can't tell if i'm actually doing the right thing. But I'm trying my best. The more posters not making over-the-top bashing statements the better imo. I thought it might help drown out the noise.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Many players say Rafa on clay is the toughest task to handle.
I believe so too, hence everything.
That was the OP question. But of course people have different opinions, though overall Rafa is an icon on clay, no one right there.
And his career is not over.

This is part of your statement that I did not agree with.

No one comparable on any surface

I state Nadal is greatest single surface champion, so I am already agreeing that beating Nadal on clay is an all mighty hard task and the biggest challenge in tennis. I just don't agree he is so far ahead on it compared to other legends at their peaks on their surfaces. But these players you speak about, how many of them crossed swords with Sampras on fast grass at Wimbledon? Honest question.

As for the rest of your post. Yes, Nadal is an icon on clay, that goes without saying and no one is disputing that at all. And we know his career is not over, just like Federer's, Djokovic's or Murray's isn't over either, but we are talking about the here and now, what happens in the future is left to be seen. In sports things change in a heartbeat.

 

[KINGROGER]

USO 2011 was Nole's lucky slam.

2015 he just completely outplayed gramperer, who had no baseline game.