Casper Ruud calls Nadal a clay specialist

[NAS]

Nadal has a 3-1 H2H record vs. Federer at the AO, and very nearly 4-0.

You do realise that even by your numbers Fed ended up with 3 AO and Rafa with one AO( after 2008), that is actually quite bad statistics

 

[skip1969]

There was a time when being a "specialist" was not an insult. It just meant that you were brought up/trained on a particular surface, and your game was molded by the specific characteristics of that surface in order to be as successful as possible. Generically, it meant that Europeans and Latin Americans were had topspinny baseline games suited to red clay. Brits and Aussies had more aggressive games and shorter, flatter strokes suited to grass. And Americans had the flexibility of playing from the back or from the net because hardcourts allowed you to win doing either. Naturally, there were exceptions to the rule, especially if your personal skill-set was such that your natural game developed in spite of the constraints of the surface you were trained on in youth.

The key takeaway is, and anyone who has followed tennis pre-2000 knows this, that one's specialized game - clay court, grass court, hard court - was usually not equally suited to every surface. On the contrary, aspects of one's specialized game which were assets on one surface, turned out to be negated on other surfaces, or even viewed as detriments. Loopy topspin that was super successful on clay, was a liability on grass, and not as effective on hard. Slice that worked wonders on grass as an attacking weapon, was handled more easily on clay and hard. Huge serves on grass and hard were diminished on clay . . .

To win all year long, players were forced to adapt their games when transitioning from one surface to another. The surfaces, themselves, demanded it. It's what made someone like Borg so unbelievable. Because winning in Paris and then winning in London just a few weeks later was night and day in terms of playing surfaces. It's why players who could win at one Slam event found it so difficult to win at another. It's why players were considered surface "specialists."

And that is why the tour sucks so much now. The tours worked very hard to diminish the most interesting and unique aspect of our sport - surface variances. Not many other sports are played (professionally) on multiple surfaces. It was unique to tennis. It led directly to a variety of playing styles. Nonetheless, fast courts were slowed down and low bounces/bad bounces were eliminated. Everything possible was done to negate the very conditions which made each surface unique. Of course, this was done because (for the most part) it was extremely difficult for almost all players to find success on every surface. Big servers and volleyers dominated the fast surfaces, while baseliners dominated the slow. Now, because fast surfaces were slowed down (and not vice versa) what we have is a tour comprised almost exclusively of baseliners; of players raised on surfaces that play almost exactly alike. Varying degrees of slowness. So that game you honed on the surface of choice of your homeland . . . well, now that game can translate easily onto any surface. There are no reasons to adjust your game anymore because there's no practical need to do so. You can win on every surface now, doing pretty much the exact same thing. And, as such, pro tennis has, in my view, devolved.

Does that mean that Nadal is not a "clay court specialist" anymore? Of course not. He was raised on clay, his game was specifically shaped to succeed on clay, and he has, since the onset of his career, striven to be Roland Garros champion, and therefore, the King of Clay. He's proven it 13 times over. But the "specialist" tag has less weight in the modern game because his game, as specific as it might have been when he was young, can now thrive on a tennis landscape that is way less specific than it used to be. The same can be said for Federer and Djokovic, and even more so for the younger players on tour. Younger players were trained on surfaces that were already less unique, which is why their games are less unique. And why the tour is a grinder's tour now. Because now you can win playing the same way all year long. Slower courts, with nice predictable and high bounces, plenty of time for long backswings, playing as close or as far from the baseline as you like, and never really having to worry about the net . . . unless you get drawn in. The Big 3 are obviously the best at it, because they pre-date or at least were trained before the surfaces were so tampered. So they still retain that natural ability to adapt their games, even just a little bit, in order to win. And I think it's why they are still winning. The reason for their longevity is, I think, due to this lone factor. Surface homogenization has catapulted them to never before seen heights in the history of our sport. They have each broken record after record, done things that 30 years ago would have seemed impossible. Why? Because even as they get older, they still have the knowledge, the memory (however distant) and the skill of players who knew what "specialists" were and what the best players of that time had to do in order to succeed on every surface. So even in 2020, they are playing chess on the court, and the rest of the younger guys are playing checkers.

 

[mxmx]

There was a time when being a "specialist" was not an insult. It just meant that you were brought up/trained on a particular surface, and your game was molded by the specific characteristics of that surface in order to be as successful as possible. Generically, it meant that Europeans and Latin Americans were had topspinny baseline games suited to red clay. Brits and Aussies had more aggressive games and shorter, flatter strokes suited to grass. And Americans had the flexibility of playing from the back or from the net because hardcourts allowed you to win doing either. Naturally, there were exceptions to the rule, especially if your personal skill-set was such that your natural game developed in spite of the constraints of the surface you were trained on in youth.

The key takeaway is, and anyone who has followed tennis pre-2000 knows this, that one's specialized game - clay court, grass court, hard court - was usually not equally suited to every surface. On the contrary, aspects of one's specialized game which were assets on one surface, turned out to be negated on other surfaces, or even viewed as detriments. Loopy topspin that was super successful on clay, was a liability on grass, and not as effective on hard. Slice that worked wonders on grass as an attacking weapon, was handled more easily on clay and hard. Huge serves on grass and hard were diminished on clay . . .

To win all year long, players were forced to adapt their games when transitioning from one surface to another. The surfaces, themselves, demanded it. It's what made someone like Borg so unbelievable. Because winning in Paris and then winning in London just a few weeks later was night and day in terms of playing surfaces. It's why players who could win at one Slam event found it so difficult to win at another. It's why players were considered surface "specialists."

And that is why the tour sucks so much now. The tours worked very hard to diminish the most interesting and unique aspect of our sport - surface variances. Not many other sports are played (professionally) on multiple surfaces. It was unique to tennis. It led directly to a variety of playing styles. Nonetheless, fast courts were slowed down and low bounces/bad bounces were eliminated. Everything possible was done to negate the very conditions which made each surface unique. Of course, this was done because (for the most part) it was extremely difficult for almost all players to find success on every surface. Big servers and volleyers dominated the fast surfaces, while baseliners dominated the slow. Now, because fast surfaces were slowed down (and not vice versa) what we have is a tour comprised almost exclusively of baseliners; of players raised on surfaces that play almost exactly alike. Varying degrees of slowness. So that game you honed on the surface of choice of your homeland . . . well, now that game can translate easily onto any surface. There are no reasons to adjust your game anymore because there's no practical need to do so. You can win on every surface now, doing pretty much the exact same thing. And, as such, pro tennis has, in my view, devolved.

Does that mean that Nadal is not a "clay court specialist" anymore? Of course not. He was raised on clay, his game was specifically shaped to succeed on clay, and he has, since the onset of his career, striven to be Roland Garros champion, and therefore, the King of Clay. He's proven it 13 times over. But the "specialist" tag has less weight in the modern game because his game, as specific as it might have been when he was young, can now thrive on a tennis landscape that is way less specific than it used to be. The same can be said for Federer and Djokovic, and even more so for the younger players on tour. Younger players were trained on surfaces that were already less unique, which is why their games are less unique. And why the tour is a grinder's tour now. Because now you can win playing the same way all year long. Slower courts, with nice predictable and high bounces, plenty of time for long backswings, playing as close or as far from the baseline as you like, and never really having to worry about the net . . . unless you get drawn in. The Big 3 are obviously the best at it, because they pre-date or at least were trained before the surfaces were so tampered. So they still retain that natural ability to adapt their games, even just a little bit, in order to win. And I think it's why they are still winning. The reason for their longevity is, I think, due to this lone factor. Surface homogenization has catapulted them to never before seen heights in the history of our sport. They have each broken record after record, done things that 30 years ago would have seemed impossible. Why? Because even as they get older, they still have the knowledge, the memory (however distant) and the skill of players who knew what "specialists" were and what the best players of that time had to do in order to succeed on every surface. So even in 2020, they are playing chess on the court, and the rest of the younger guys are playing checkers.

A post to end all posts. Great post. It basically sums up everything.

Who is the best male and female players you have seen in your lifetime?

 

[skip1969]

A post to end all posts. Great post. It basically sums up everything.

Who is the best male and female players you have seen in your lifetime?

Thanks. I don't know why I got on my soapbox, but . . .

Player-wise, I don't know. I've had sooooo many, I think. When I first picked up a racquet, I wanted to volley like McEnroe and return and rally like Agassi. LOL. I think I ended up being more like Safin - fun, erratic, but pretty unreliable. One of my all-time faves, that one.

But I watched tennis all the time and had a real appreciation for whoever was successful on whatever surface. I appreciated the patience it took to win on clay (because I have no patience). I appreciated the chipping and charging, the abandon, the quick movement that was needed to win on grass (because I'm not agile). And the unpredictability of hard courts and the USO, where anything could happen. I followed the ATP and the WTA and appreciated what each brought to the table. I tried to learn from the best on each surface, and tried incorporating those lessons into my own game.

Now, I'm older. The tour bores me. (Hence, my little Ted Talk above). LOL Part of it is 15 years of domination by the same crew. Like I said, I got no patience. I've never had the same job for 15 years, or place to live, or spouse . . . LOL. So I'm well over Fed/Nadal/Djokovic, no offense to them.

It's not that I'm nostalgic. But I think the product the ATP is delivering is less interesting than before, because of the absence of variety. They helped to kill net play and the extremes of the surfaces, and they did it within a couple of decades, a generation. It will take a lot longer to undo that damage, if they ever decide to. Which I doubt.

 

[ChrisRF]

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!

I meant if Nadal beats Sampras’ whole career with his clay numbers alone, then he must be greater than Sampras.

If Sampras’ era was the specialists era (which it was to some degree) and yet Sampras couldn’t get more titles on his favourite fast courts AND everywhere else combined, then how could he be competition for Nadal in the GOAT discussion?

Again, Nadal could have played only clay in his career, and this 2 months alone every year would put him above Sampras. It’s really that extreme right now, when he wins his 14th Slam and beats Sampras’ 64 overall titles with clay alone.

 

[mxmx]

I meant if Nadal beats Sampras’ whole career with his clay numbers alone, then he must be greater than Sampras.

If Sampras’ era was the specialists era (which it was to some degree) and yet Sampras couldn’t get more titles on his favourite fast courts AND everywhere else combined, then how could he be competition for Nadal in the GOAT discussion?

Again, Nadal could have played only clay in his career, and this 2 months alone every year would put him above Sampras. It’s really that extreme right now, when he wins his 14th Slam and beats Sampras’ 64 overall titles with clay alone.

Sure, and you have a point. It just however doesn't convince me that the opponents he faced outside Federer, Djokovic (and Murray) was enough. The depth of field aside from them to me is far worse. The above mentioned names were basically guaranteed finals between them because everyone else in earlier rounds were weak.

This made their odds for winning EVERYTHING 25% - 50% which is wayyy too high.

 

[mxmx]

Thanks. I don't know why I got on my soapbox, but . . .

Player-wise, I don't know. I've had sooooo many, I think. When I first picked up a racquet, I wanted to volley like McEnroe and return and rally like Agassi. LOL. I think I ended up being more like Safin - fun, erratic, but pretty unreliable. One of my all-time faves, that one.

But I watched tennis all the time and had a real appreciation for whoever was successful on whatever surface. I appreciated the patience it took to win on clay (because I have no patience). I appreciated the chipping and charging, the abandon, the quick movement that was needed to win on grass (because I'm not agile). And the unpredictability of hard courts and the USO, where anything could happen. I followed the ATP and the WTA and appreciated what each brought to the table. I tried to learn from the best on each surface, and tried incorporating those lessons into my own game.

Now, I'm older. The tour bores me. (Hence, my little Ted Talk above). LOL Part of it is 15 years of domination by the same crew. Like I said, I got no patience. I've never had the same job for 15 years, or place to live, or spouse . . . LOL. So I'm well over Fed/Nadal/Djokovic, no offense to them.

It's not that I'm nostalgic. But I think the product the ATP is delivering is less interesting than before, because of the absence of variety. They helped to kill net play and the extremes of the surfaces, and they did it within a couple of decades, a generation. It will take a lot longer to undo that damage, if they ever decide to. Which I doubt.

McEnroe definitely needs a mention. So does Becker and some others.

"He who finds a wife finds a good thing..."

 

[Karma Tennis]

Rafa has 13 RG Titles.
Roger has 8 Wimbledon Titles.
Novak has 9 AO Titles.

How fortunate are we to be witnessing an era where 3 different players have each won at least 8 Major Titles on one of the three different surfaces over their overlapping careers?

 

[ZanderGoga]

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).

Nadal would never have won a set off of Sampras in any slam not held in Paris, if he played in Pete's era. The raw slam numbers stacking up for today's big three are nothing but surface uniformity and the death of the sport meaning no top flight athletes enter the talent pool behind them any more. There's less talent in pro tennis now than in any time since the dawn of the open era.

 

[TheNachoMan]

He only wins on HC when the court is covered with snail slime. LOL

Spoiler

don’t crucify me Octo

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

access to the academy lab denied:
señor ruud, your badge has been locked.
please contact tio toni for further information.

 

[Steve0904]

Ruud is complimenting Nadal here, but the use of the phrase over the years was often derogatory. As in someone who was great only on clay, and god awful on other surfaces. Guys who could make a deep run at RG, but who never won a match at Wimbledon and not much on HC.

 

[ChrisRF]

Nadal would never have won a set off of Sampras in any slam not held in Paris, if he played in Pete's era. The raw slam numbers stacking up for today's big three are nothing but surface uniformity and the death of the sport meaning no top flight athletes enter the talent pool behind them any more. There's less talent in pro tennis now than in any time since the dawn of the open era.

Again, Nadal won more on one single surface than Sampras in his whole career. That has nothing to do with homogenisation etc. On the contrary, if everything was different back then, then Sampras should have found a niche where he is the specialist and competes with Nadal’s numbers there alone. He didn’t, so he cannot be bigger than Nadal. Especially not if he cannot eclipse Nadal’s clay numbers with his WHOLE career. There is no comparison, really.

And just look against which players Sampras lost at Slams outside Wimbledon, and you know a player as talented as Nadal would have beaten him regularly. Or do you think if someone like Corretja could trouble Sampras on any surface, Nadal couldn’t have?

 

[Karma Tennis]

And just look against which players Sampras lost at Slams outside Wimbledon, and you know a player as talented as Nadal would have beaten him regularly.

Do you think he would have if they were both using 85 sq inch hoops with 18x19 patterns and full beds of Natural Gut?

 

[Rapenj]

The game now is a clay court game no matter the surface. And not surprising the guy that has the best clay game ever is going to finish as one of the greatest if not greatest if all time.

even at the WTF? Don't think so...

 

[Karma Tennis]

WTF

If by WTF you mean the World Tour Finals ... the WTF is a stupid event.

If the ATP was serious about the WTF being a prestigious tournament it would alternate the surface each year at least between HC and Clay, and preferably between Grass, HC and Clay.

 

[octobrina10]

access to the academy lab denied:
señor ruud, your badge has been locked.
please contact tio toni for further information.

This Fed devotee (quoted) is trying to twist what Ruud said to fit Fed devotees' agenda.

 

[a10best]

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.

Sampras - don't forget about Rafter mate. Plus Henman, Kraijcek, Rios, Kafelnikov, and Safin., Yes, it was brutal. Hewitt, Edberg,and Agassi were fearless and relentless.
Nadal- don't forget top 10 players Roddick, Blake, Gonzo, Fish, Ferrer.

Thiem, Zverev, and Medvedev would not be ranked as high back in that era. Give the Sampras' generation the same racket technology and those three would be ranked 20-30. Thiem is a poor man's Muster or Guga.
Perhaps this generation never had real belief or the drive to win slams as much. If they make the qrs or semis, life(money) is great.

I think only 3 players in this tail-end of a generation should have won more slams; Murray (always close), Del Potro (injuries) and Tsonga (at least 1)

 

[Karma Tennis]

Perhaps this generation never had real belief or the drive to win slams as much. If they make the qrs or semis, life(money) is great.

This is a very astute comment and what you infer is something I agree with completely.

Unfortunately, professionalism comes at a great cost to the purity of most sports.

However, every player is entitled to manage their career any way they see fit. I mean, even Borg didn't bother with the AO after playing it one time. If he had, he probably would have won at least five or six AO Titles.

 

[a10best]

This is a very astute comment and what you infer is something I agree with completely.

Unfortunately, professionalism comes at a great cost to the purity of most sports.

However, every player is entitled to manage their career any way they see fit. I mean, even Borg didn't bother with the AO after playing it one time. If he had, he probably would have won at least five or six AO Titles.

That's very true. Winning is not everything for all pro athletes. Career longevity, family, and travel mgmt are. To me they already reached success by getting to and remaining at the highest level.

 

[Waves]

Yes, yes and yes to the truths written in this thread. The big 3 have slam records, but their pedestals are more than shakey in the cosmic picture of tennis history. Between the surface alteration, racquet and string tech, lack of youthful competition, I too can see a case where prior champions are, at least, the equal of the big 3. Feds game seems to be able to translate, maybe ND’s on his best day, but not with older racquets(and no lobs) and Rafa’s really only with multiple qualifiers.

I wouldn’t say the tour sucks today, though it’s close, but when the 3 are done, unless changes are made, it will just be kind of boring and random.

 

[SonnyT]

Now I know there's no hope for Casper!