Casper Ruud calls Nadal a clay specialist

N

ND-13

Legend
Interview on Tennis Channel with Casper after his R2 win and his training at Nadal academy and practice with Rafa, etc

They asked him about having success everywhere. He said he is fundamentally a clay court player but can take the clay court game to HC and still have it work, as evidenced by his AO 4th Rd and USO 3rd Rd, He said his topspin game is in contrast to flat hitters who specialize in HC.

He said Rafa has won 4 USO, 1 AO and 2 Wimb by playing the clay game everywhere and that gives him the confidence.

It is not just this forum that thinks Nadal is a clay specialist. :)-
 
You know, it's taken me some time to grow up and wisen to the fact that the term "clay specialist" is not actually an insult unless you've been fooled into buying into the premise that clay is somehow inherently inferior as a surface, which it most certainly is not.

So yeah, in a way Nadal is a clay specialist, if by that we mean that he is a player with a game that most naturally suits clay and has repurposed his game to work on other surfaces.

But by that definition, Djokovic is a HC specialist who repurposed his natural game to work on other surfaces, but the adjustments he has made are to a far lesser extent by virtue of HC being the most neutral surface of the lot. This may explain why his game looks the least different across the surfaces whereas Fedal's games I think have far more noticeable differences when they're playing on their worst surface.

Federer similarly is a grass / fast court specialist who repurposed his game to work on the other surfaces as well.

And the approaches all three have made to all-surface success works as well as it does in part because of surface homogenisation.
 
Last edited:
Bender said:
You know, it's taken me some time to grow up and wisen to the fact that the term "clay specialist" is not actually an insult unless you've been fooled into buying into the premise that clay is somehow inherently inferior as a surface, which it most certainly is not.

So yeah, in a way Nadal is a clay specialist, if by that we mean that he is a player with a game that most naturally suits clay and has repurposed his game to work on other surfaces.

But by that definition, Djokovic is a HC specialist who repurposed his natural game to work on other surfaces, but the adjustments he has made are to a far lesser extent by virtue of HC being the most neutral surface of the lot. This may explain why his game looks the least different across the surfaces whereas Fedal's games I think have far more noticeable differences when they're playing on their worst surface.

Federer similarly is a grass / fast court specialist who repurposed his game to work on the other surfaces as well.

And the approaches all three have made to all-surface success was assisted by surface homogenisation.
Click to expand...

None of them have had to make anything like the adjustments that players did in the past. Borg and Lendl, for example, used to try serving and volleying at Wimbledon, after treating the net like it was electrified at Roland Garros just before. Sampras and Becker, by contrast, tried to stay back more at Roland Garros. Agassi's changes were partly the result of his opponents doing different things, though. For example, his passing shots and returns were more usable at Wimbledon, where many of his opponents approached the net, whereas at Roland Garros, he didn't get the opportunity to pass a moving target so much. But even Agassi, I think, tried to go for his shots even more at Wimbledon than elsewhere.

I agree that Djokovic makes fewer adjustments than Nadal or Federer, but I don't see any of them just playing a completely different game, whereas that did happen in previous generations.
 
ND-13 said:
Interview on Tennis Channel with Casper after his R2 win and his training at Nadal academy and practice with Rafa, etc

They asked him about having success everywhere. He said he is fundamentally a clay court player but can take the clay court game to HC and still have it work, as evidenced by his AO 4th Rd and USO 3rd Rd, He said his topspin game is in contrast to flat hitters who specialize in HC.

He said Rafa has won 4 USO, 1 AO and 2 Wimb by playing the clay game everywhere and that gives him the confidence.

It is not just this forum that thinks Nadal is a clay specialist. :)-
Click to expand...
Nadal is GOAT according to Ruud Tsonga Murray Popryn and many others whose best surface is clay.
Your thread may get deleted as it praises Nadal as Ruud is effectively saying Nadal is GOAT. I like Ruud
 
helterskelter said:
None of them have had to make anything like the adjustments that players did in the past. Borg and Lendl, for example, used to try serving and volleying at Wimbledon, after treating the net like it was electrified at Roland Garros just before. Sampras and Becker, by contrast, tried to stay back more at Roland Garros. Agassi's changes were partly the result of his opponents doing different things, though. For example, his passing shots and returns were more usable at Wimbledon, where many of his opponents approached the net, whereas at Roland Garros, he didn't get the opportunity to pass a moving target so much. But even Agassi, I think, tried to go for his shots even more at Wimbledon than elsewhere.

I agree that Djokovic makes fewer adjustments than Nadal or Federer, but I don't see any of them just playing a completely different game, whereas that did happen in previous generations.
Click to expand...
It is why some experts say Sampras is GOAT.
 
helterskelter said:
None of them have had to make anything like the adjustments that players did in the past. Borg and Lendl, for example, used to try serving and volleying at Wimbledon, after treating the net like it was electrified at Roland Garros just before. Sampras and Becker, by contrast, tried to stay back more at Roland Garros. Agassi's changes were partly the result of his opponents doing different things, though. For example, his passing shots and returns were more usable at Wimbledon, where many of his opponents approached the net, whereas at Roland Garros, he didn't get the opportunity to pass a moving target so much. But even Agassi, I think, tried to go for his shots even more at Wimbledon than elsewhere.

I agree that Djokovic makes fewer adjustments than Nadal or Federer, but I don't see any of them just playing a completely different game, whereas that did happen in previous generations.
Click to expand...
I never said they play completely different games, just that their games change noticeably when on clay / grass in comparison to Djokovic's, which is very similar across all three surfaces, which explains his more even successes across them.
Beckerserve said:
It is why some experts say Sampras is GOAT.
Click to expand...
helterskelter said:
Way more dominant as a whole over his field than has been anyone in the open era except for Borg, and Borg didn't keep it going as long.
Click to expand...
I'd say Borg if surface versatility is the deciding factor. The common criticism (paraphrased) is that Sampras showed his all-surface wizardry by excelling on fast grass, fast hards, and fast carpet.
 
Nadal is a clay specialist AND an all-surfaces player. Just like Djokovic is a hard specialist and an all-surfaces player and Federer is a grass specialist and an all-surfaces player.

What is a surface specialist? A player who is more succesful in one surface than the others. All members of the Big 3 are specialized (have better results) in one surface. Nadal has better results on clay than hard/grass, Djokovic has better results on hard than grass/clay and Federer has better results on grass than hard/clay.
 
Last edited:
Beckerserve said:
Had Sampras won FO he would be GOAT for me by a distance. At his very best he is best i have ever seen.
Click to expand...

I could never put the term GOAT on Sampras only because I was an Agassi fan. Even before Federer, Nadal and Djokovic started being mentioned as GOAT, I would look for any reason why not to say Sampras was the greatest. The FO was always my biggest argument and that he was boring to watch. haha
 
Beckerserve said:
Had Sampras won FO he would be GOAT for me by a distance. At his very best he is best i have ever seen.
Click to expand...
I was a big Sampras fan in my childhood, but still I cannot say this. I mean, Nadal is about to beat Sampras’ whole career on clay alone, and not only at the Slams but in all titles as well.

So even if Sampras had to deal with more different conditions, if he couldn’t beat Nadal’s clay numbers when adding all his specialist AND non-specialist conditions, then he cannot be the GOAT, and it’s not even close.

Nadal will finally beat Sampras by using 1 Slam compared to 4 and by using 3 Masters compared to 9 (or even 10 if we add Sampras’ WTF titles).
 
catskillthunder said:
I could never put the term GOAT on Sampras only because I was an Agassi fan. Even before Federer, Nadal and Djokovic started being mentioned as GOAT, I would look for any reason why not to say Sampras was the greatest. The FO was always my biggest argument and that he was boring to watch. haha
Click to expand...
When he was on though he was unreal. I think Agassi said while Nadal is the greatest he ever faced for sheer intensity and goat level every point in terms of highest level of play he ever faced when zoning it was Sampras. I was a Becker and Courier fan in 90s so i did share your pain!!
 
there should be more days between grand slam qualifying round and grand slam 1st round

after all qualifiers are human and they need rest too

Post # 2800
 
Last edited:
ND-13 said:
Interview on Tennis Channel with Casper after his R2 win and his training at Nadal academy and practice with Rafa, etc

They asked him about having success everywhere. He said he is fundamentally a clay court player but can take the clay court game to HC and still have it work, as evidenced by his AO 4th Rd and USO 3rd Rd, He said his topspin game is in contrast to flat hitters who specialize in HC.

He said Rafa has won 4 USO, 1 AO and 2 Wimb by playing the clay game everywhere and that gives him the confidence.

It is not just this forum that thinks Nadal is a clay specialist. :)-
Click to expand...
Yes, Rafa is a specialist.
Dictionaries say: a specialist is a person who has a particular skill or knows a lot about a particular subject.
Antonyms for 'specialist': dabbler, dilettante...
www.wordhippo.com

What is the opposite of specialist?

Antonyms for specialist include amateur, dunce, generalist, ignoramus, rookie, general practitioner, idiot, fool, imbecile and dullard. Find more opposite words at wordhippo.com!
www.wordhippo.com www.wordhippo.com
 
ChrisRF said:
I was a big Sampras fan in my childhood, but still I cannot say this. I mean, Nadal is about to beat Sampras’ whole career on clay alone, and not only at the Slams but in all titles as well.

So even if Sampras had to deal with more different conditions, if he couldn’t beat Nadal’s clay numbers when adding all his specialist AND non-specialist conditions, then he cannot be the GOAT, and it’s not even close.

Nadal will finally beat Sampras by using 1 Slam compared to 4 and by using 3 Masters compared to 9 (or even 10 if we add Sampras’ WTF titles).
Click to expand...
Sampras had a much harder era. Courier agassi becker edberg hewitt roddick federer stich ivanisevic bruguera muster lendl (tail end) McEnroe (tail end) moya kuerten, i mean his era was brutal.
Nadal has had Agassi (tail end) Federer Djokovic Murray and Del Potro.
The reason why Nadal has played Djokovic and Federer so often is because how bad mens tennis overall has been past decade or so.
Now it is beyond a joke. Nadal is not even 30 pct the player he was yet still 2nd best player on tour. Djokovic only about 60 pct of what he was and he is no.1. Both should really be out of top 5 now if there was any real quality coming through.
 
Bender said:
You know, it's taken me some time to grow up and wisen to the fact that the term "clay specialist" is not actually an insult unless you've been fooled into buying into the premise that clay is somehow inherently inferior as a surface, which it most certainly is not.

So yeah, in a way Nadal is a clay specialist, if by that we mean that he is a player with a game that most naturally suits clay and has repurposed his game to work on other surfaces.

But by that definition, Djokovic is a HC specialist who repurposed his natural game to work on other surfaces, but the adjustments he has made are to a far lesser extent by virtue of HC being the most neutral surface of the lot. This may explain why his game looks the least different across the surfaces whereas Fedal's games I think have far more noticeable differences when they're playing on their worst surface.

Federer similarly is a grass / fast court specialist who repurposed his game to work on the other surfaces as well.

And the approaches all three have made to all-surface success works as well as it does in part because of surface homogenisation.
Click to expand...

The reality is that many in the tennis community use it in a derogatory way. You even have many, like Kyrgios, who take it a step further and display their ethnic prejudices by assuming all Hispanic people are clay court specialists and that somehow makes them lesser.
 
I'll take Ruud's word for it, he's a pro and tennis expert.
 
octobrina10 said:
According to OP, Ruud said: "Rafa has won 4 USO, 1 AO and 2 Wimb by playing the clay game everywhere and that gives him the confidence."
Ruud praised Rafa, but OP twisted Ruud's words to fit the agenda of his thread.
Click to expand...

Odd. OP has an agenda?
 
NADALalot said:
Djokovic is a hardcourt specialist.
But Nadal has won more US Opens than Djokovic........and Nadal leads their US Open H2H too.
That says it all.
Oh also, Nadal and Wilander are the only men ever to win multiple slams on Clay, Grass and Hardcourt.
Click to expand...
Bender said:
You know, it's taken me some time to grow up and wisen to the fact that the term "clay specialist" is not actually an insult unless you've been fooled into buying into the premise that clay is somehow inherently inferior as a surface, which it most certainly is not.

So yeah, in a way Nadal is a clay specialist, if by that we mean that he is a player with a game that most naturally suits clay and has repurposed his game to work on other surfaces.

But by that definition, Djokovic is a HC specialist who repurposed his natural game to work on other surfaces, but the adjustments he has made are to a far lesser extent by virtue of HC being the most neutral surface of the lot. This may explain why his game looks the least different across the surfaces whereas Fedal's games I think have far more noticeable differences when they're playing on their worst surface.

Federer similarly is a grass / fast court specialist who repurposed his game to work on the other surfaces as well.

And the approaches all three have made to all-surface success works as well as it does in part because of surface homogenisation.
Click to expand...

Beautiful :D
 
NADALalot said:
Djokovic is a hardcourt specialist.
But Nadal has won more US Opens than Djokovic........and Nadal leads their US Open H2H too.
That says it all.
Oh also, Nadal and Wilander are the only men ever to win multiple slams on Clay, Grass and Hardcourt.
Click to expand...
The US open is now a glorified clay court so the H2H and titles he’s won there don’t mean much in the grand scheme of things . When Federer was dominating there Nadal would be 2 sets down by the time he’s done scratching his behind
 
40-15 still haunts me said:
The US open is now a glorified clay court so the H2H and titles he’s won there don’t mean much in the grand scheme of things . When Federer was dominating there Nadal would be 2 sets down by the time he’s done scratching his behind
Click to expand...
Nadal has a 3-1 H2H record vs. Federer at the AO, and very nearly 4-0.
 
Don't see any problem with it. "Clay specialist" isn't a derogatory term. Nadal's game is most naturally suited to clay and that's where he achieves his best results. This doesn't mean he isn't good on other surfaces.
 
I mean when you win 421 clay court titles vs other surfaces you'll tend to get branded a specialist for that surface. I dont think Rudd meant it egregiously
 
Federer is grass specialist.
Djokovic is hardcourt specialist.
Nadal is claycourt specialist, except he's won more US Opens than the hardcourt specialist because Nadal is a genius.
 
There haven't been any clay court specialists for at least 15 years. Probably the last great one was Thomas Muster.
Players like Rios, Moya and Kuerten proved in the late 90s / early 2000s that if you can play well on clay you can play well anywhere.
Rafa is the logical conclusion of this.

But to suggest that someone who has been in 5 Wimbledon finals, 4 US Open finals and 5 Australian Open finals and has the best win loss record of all time is a clay court specialist is simply ludicrous. The only thing Nadal specialises in is winning.
 
Nothing deragatory intended. Rafa has won 7 majors outside clay. So he knows how to win on all surfaces.

The point was Ruud believed you can take the clay game anywhere, not try anything drastically different and still have success.
 
Djokovic played traditional clay tennis in the 2021 Rome Final, and won 20 of 25 points with more than 9 shots.
Nadal played traditional hardcourt tennis and dominated the shorter points, and won the match....
The Uncle Toni version of Nadal played clay tennis........whereas the Moya version of Nadal plays hardcourt tennis.
 
ND-13 said:
Nothing deragatory intended. Rafa has won 7 majors outside clay. So he knows how to win on all surfaces.

The point was Ruud believed you can take the clay game anywhere, not try anything drastically different and still have success.
Click to expand...
You should have written this in the title of the thread & OP.
 
Beckerserve said:
Had Sampras won FO he would be GOAT for me by a distance. At his very best he is best i have ever seen.
Click to expand...
To me Sampras and Federer are the two best we've seen. Close between them for me. Others like Agassi, Nadal and Djokovic come close but not truly as great...
 
mxmx said:
To me Sampras and Federer are the two best we've seen. Close between them for me. Others like Agassi, Nadal and Djokovic come close but not truly as great...
Click to expand...
I assume you like that all round game. Federer made huge error circa 2006 when he became a baseliner.
 
NADALalot said:
Federer is grass specialist.
Djokovic is hardcourt specialist.
Nadal is claycourt specialist, except he's won more US Opens than the hardcourt specialist because Nadal is a genius.
Click to expand...

Casper who?

Nadal's ownership of clay is more about Fed and Djo not being able to compete at Nadal's level on clay, than Nadal specializing on clay only.

Truth is, none of them are specialist, meaning they completely excel on one surface and are abysmal on the other surfaces. The winning percentages of each surface by each of them is fricken impressive. The issue has been, they end up going against each other on preferred surfaces and lose more often than not.

One could argue Nadal is the worst of the best on grass, but still managed to pull together impressive numbers, and titles to boot.
 
mxmx said:
To me Sampras and Federer are the two best we've seen. Close between them for me. Others like Agassi, Nadal and Djokovic come close but not truly as great...
Click to expand...

I think pure talent wise, Agassi is probably the best I have ever witnessed. Too bad he didnt utilize his time better or maybe he would have had a lot more GS to his resume.
 
ChrisRF said:
I was a big Sampras fan in my childhood, but still I cannot say this. I mean, Nadal is about to beat Sampras’ whole career on clay alone, and not only at the Slams but in all titles as well.

So even if Sampras had to deal with more different conditions, if he couldn’t beat Nadal’s clay numbers when adding all his specialist AND non-specialist conditions, then he cannot be the GOAT, and it’s not even close.

Nadal will finally beat Sampras by using 1 Slam compared to 4 and by using 3 Masters compared to 9 (or even 10 if we add Sampras’ WTF titles).
Click to expand...
You cannot reason like this. Clay specialists were greater back then and the FO final was harder to reach. Sure, the modern FO final is harder to win with Nadal, but Nadal would certainly prefer facing modern clay folk in early rounds than those a few decades ago...which I'm sure would have given him a tough time if his game was off.

Simply put. Neither Federer nor Sampras would win clay in Sampras' era. Would Nadal win Wimbledon on fast grass back then? In my opinion, NO!
 
catskillthunder said:
I think pure talent wise, Agassi is probably the best I have ever witnessed. Too bad he didnt utilize his time better or maybe he would have had a lot more GS to his resume.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Agassi is the reason I started playing tennis. I think Sampras' serve and efficiency made him better...that and his body length helped. Groundstroke and mentally wise, Agassi is right up to the top.

Federer is almost a step love child of Sampras (serve) and Agassi (groundstrokes). Not as great as his "folks", but a balance of both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

clout
  • Poll Poll
Was 2005-07 Nadal a clay specialist?
Replies
30
Views
2K
Meles
Meles
beard
  • Poll Poll
Is Nadal clay specialist that is specialized to special clay?
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
D.Nalby12
D
Dominic & Andrey
What are your expectations for Casper Ruud during the clay season ?
Replies
37
Views
1K
Shaolin
Shaolin
The_Order
The logical way to compare the greatest players at the slams
Replies
4
Views
551
junior74
junior74
Hitman
If you've been calling Ruud a clay court specialist, maybe it is time to re-think it
Replies
42
Views
2K
MeatTornado
MeatTornado
Back
Top