Djokovic v Rafa.

[RAFA2005RG]

Obviously trolling! Djokovic was tired after that long SF vs Murray and Nadal didn't beat him.

I see that you mention fifth set between Murray and Djokovic at USO but what can you tell me about fourth set in USO 2011 final?

I can tell you that Nadal injured his foot vs Del Potro at the 2011 Wimbledon. And I can tell you that Nadal didn't pick up a racquet for 6 WEEKS after Wimbledon as doctors advised him not to put any pressure on his foot.

I can also tell you that just before the 2011 US Open began, Nadal said he was unable to train after Wimbledon and that he wasn't in good enough condition for the US Open and that he will try his best but doesn't expect much.

That explains the 4th set of the 2011 US Open, as Nadal had nothing left, due to poor physical condition which he foretold prior to the US Open.

 

[Gonzo_style]

I can tell you that Nadal injured his foot vs Del Potro at the 2011 Wimbledon. And I can tell you that Nadal didn't pick up a racquet for 6 WEEKS after Wimbledon as doctors advised him not to put any pressure on his foot.

I can also tell you that just before the 2011 US Open began, Nadal said he was unable to train after Wimbledon and that he wasn't in good enough condition for the US Open and that he will try his best but doesn't expect much.

That explains the 4th set of the 2011 US Open, as Nadal had nothing left, due to poor physical condition which he foretold prior to the US Open.

Poor physical condition? Nadal beat Roddick and Murray and lost only one set!

I thought we had some discussion, goodbye!

 

[Mike Sams]

I can tell you that Nadal injured his foot vs Del Potro at the 2011 Wimbledon. And I can tell you that Nadal didn't pick up a racquet for 6 WEEKS after Wimbledon as doctors advised him not to put any pressure on his foot.

I can also tell you that just before the 2011 US Open began, Nadal said he was unable to train after Wimbledon and that he wasn't in good enough condition for the US Open and that he will try his best but doesn't expect much.

That explains the 4th set of the 2011 US Open, as Nadal had nothing left, due to poor physical condition which he foretold prior to the US Open.

With the way things are looking or sounding with Nadal's body, I think he may have only 1 more season left to achieve anything before he is left a broken man needing major surgery to repair his limbs only to come back never the same again and then retiring and playing golf in Majorca. :lol:

 

[Deleted member 77403]

2013 is the season when the H2H begins to close. Djokovic will take the H2H lead against Nadal by 2014. Nadal can't rely on Djokovic's grandfather dying again right before a final.

I think Djokovic was under tremendous pressure to perform well in 2012 after this stellar 2011, and I think was hindered by the heavy weight of expectation that was placed onto his shoulders, and doing the unthinkable at RG, may have strained him too much. Plus, he was suffering from personal tragedy with the loss of a loved one.

He was on fire in Miami, but after that loss of his family member, I was stunned he even made it to the final of MC.

The fact that he took on an on fire big four this year, he still out righted ended the world number one. Not even the mentally strong Nadal has been mentally strong enough to have back to back years as world number one.

If these two meet again, I expect them both to continue to battle hard, but if Rafa starts to meet Djoker more and more later in the year, advantage to Djokovic.

 

[Towser83]

Huh??

How does it prove that? It proves that Nadal has won most of his matches against Djokovic on clay. Take clay out and Nadal would have a losing h2h record of 7-12 against Djokovic.

Yeah but take out HC and leave the rest and it's 14-3 to Nadal. It's not fair to take out clay just because it's clay, Djokovic's wins are as heavily tilted towards one surface as Nadal's. It's only an issue if the clay meetings are more than any other surface.

I can tell you that Nadal injured his foot vs Del Potro at the 2011 Wimbledon. And I can tell you that Nadal didn't pick up a racquet for 6 WEEKS after Wimbledon as doctors advised him not to put any pressure on his foot.

I can also tell you that just before the 2011 US Open began, Nadal said he was unable to train after Wimbledon and that he wasn't in good enough condition for the US Open and that he will try his best but doesn't expect much.

That explains the 4th set of the 2011 US Open, as Nadal had nothing left, due to poor physical condition which he foretold prior to the US Open.

And I can tell you his foot was fine.

 

[Crisstti]

Huh??

How does it prove that? It proves that Nadal has won most of his matches against Djokovic on clay. Take clay out and Nadal would have a losing h2h record of 7-12 against Djokovic.

And Djokovic has won most of his matches against Nadal on hc. Yet still Rafa has won several big matches against him on hc, much more than the other way around.

And what Towser said.

 

[Mustard]

Clay is just as legitimate a surface as any other surface. The argument of the anti-Nadal brigade of "take out clay and blah" is ridiculous. One could just as easily say that hardcourt shouldn't count because it's Nadal weakest surface. One could say "Take out hardcourt, Nadal now leads Djokovic 14-3. Complete ownage. Blah!".

The fact of the matter is that Nadal leads Federer, Djokovic and Murray in head-to-head, both overall and in majors.

Djokovic has given more trouble to Nadal on clay than anybody else. Djokovic played a poor clay season for his standard this year and was lucky to make the RG final and even still he was breaking Nadal's serve almost at will. Imagine what happens if Djokovic 2.0 got a hold of Nadal? :shock:

Nadal was winning pretty comfortably until the conditions got rainy and muddy.

 

[Mike Sams]

Clay is just as legitimate a surface as any other surface. The argument of the anti-Nadal brigade of "take out clay and blah" is ridiculous. One could just as easily say that hardcourt shouldn't count because it's Nadal weakest surface. One could say "Take out hardcourt, Nadal now leads Djokovic 14-3. Complete ownage. Blah!".

The fact of the matter is that Nadal leads Federer, Djokovic and Murray in head-to-head, both overall and in majors.



Nadal was winning pretty comfortably until the conditions got rainy and muddy.

Showed that the lower bouncing surface was killing Nadal's game. Couldn't quite get that spin high enough to trouble Djokovic on the backhand side it seemed.

 

[Crisstti]

Clay is just as legitimate a surface as any other surface. The argument of the anti-Nadal brigade of "take out clay and blah" is ridiculous. One could just as easily say that hardcourt shouldn't count because it's Nadal weakest surface. One could say "Take out hardcourt, Nadal now leads Djokovic 14-3. Complete ownage. Blah!".

The fact of the matter is that Nadal leads Federer, Djokovic and Murray in head-to-head, both overall and in majors.



Nadal was winning pretty comfortably until the conditions got rainy and muddy.

It's absolutely ridiculous. Hard to believe people say that with a straight face really.

(Even though C is not actually anti-Nadal).

 

[cc0509]

Yeah but take out HC and leave the rest and it's 14-3 to Nadal. It's not fair to take out clay just because it's clay, Djokovic's wins are as heavily tilted towards one surface as Nadal's. It's only an issue if the clay meetings are more than any other surface.

Fair point. Djokovic's strongest surface is definitely HC and if we took that out of the mix, Nadal would obviously be way ahead. It is just that HC's make up over two thirds of the tour. In any case, the only reason I am talking about it is because we are yet to determine whether Nadal can still consistently defeat Djokovic OFF clay as Nadal has not won a tournament off clay since 2010 and he has not defeated Djokovic off clay since Djokovic's 2011 winning streak over Nadal.

 

[cc0509]

And Djokovic has won most of his matches against Nadal on hc. Yet still Rafa has won several big matches against him on hc, much more than the other way around.

And what Towser said.

I agree but the issue is not whether Nadal has defeated Djokovic off clay because obviously he has, but whether or not Nadal can still beat Djokovic off clay moving forward. Nadal has not defeated Djokovic off clay since Djokovic's 2011 winning streak over him.

We know that Nadal is better on HC than Djokovic is on clay but since the tour is played mostly on HC, that does not really help Nadal out moving forward.

 

[cc0509]

Clay is just as legitimate a surface as any other surface. The argument of the anti-Nadal brigade of "take out clay and blah" is ridiculous. One could just as easily say that hardcourt shouldn't count because it's Nadal weakest surface. One could say "Take out hardcourt, Nadal now leads Djokovic 14-3. Complete ownage. Blah!".

Except too bad for you, most of the tour is played on hc so Djokovic has the clear advantage.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Except too bad for you, most of the tour is played on hc so Djokovic has the clear advantage.

Just goes to show what is wrong with the ATP tour. We need more clay tournaments; in my opinion, the hard-court tournaments from AustralianOpen to Miami are enough. The USOpen was successful when it was played on clay, so simply turn Toronto/Cincinnati/USOpen into clay tournaments, then it would be far more balanced.

 

[cc0509]

Just goes to show what is wrong with the ATP tour. We need more clay tournaments; in my opinion, the hard-court tournaments from AustralianOpen to Miami are enough. The USOpen was successful when it was played on clay, so simply turn Toronto/Cincinnati/USOpen into clay tournaments, then it would be far more balanced.

I say we need more grass tournaments not more clay, there is enough clay. As for hc, I think the mix is just fine.

 

[Mustard]

There should be more clay, more grass, more carpet, and less hardcourts. It would mean players' careers lasting longer, and having a more diversified tour, but it will cost the tennis authorities more money, and the latter is why it won't happen.

 

[wy2sl0]

Just goes to show what is wrong with the ATP tour. We need more clay tournaments; in my opinion, the hard-court tournaments from AustralianOpen to Miami are enough. The USOpen was successful when it was played on clay, so simply turn Toronto/Cincinnati/USOpen into clay tournaments, then it would be far more balanced.

Or, I have a better idea. Nadal could just get to more finals on hard and stop crying like a little girl that the surfaces are destroying his body.

You want more clay? Then more indoors, carpet, etc. Nadal would certainly have a much poorer record if we balanced ALL PAST SURFACES across the year. He already gets to play on sandpaper on all of the HC slams anyways.

Now I will just wait for some useless statistic like Nadal is now the best grass court player etc, and that he would win anyways. You may continue...

Nadal is a great slow surface player. He does not translate across all surfaces like Djokovic and Federer do, period. Stop trying to argue that Nadal is the greatest at everything, he isn't.

 

[DRII]

Except too bad for you, most of the tour is played on hc so Djokovic has the clear advantage.

All of the Big 4 has an advantage over Nadal due to the skew towards HC!

Yet Nadal leads all H2H, and is the only one who can claim as much!

If there was true parity amongst the 3 surfaces (4 if you include carpet, which is hardly ever played on anymore); Nadal would surely have an even more impressive record vs his elite peers!!!


Next...

 

[Deleted member 77403]

There should be more clay, more grass, more carpet, and less hardcourts. It would mean players' careers lasting longer, and having a more diversified tour, but it will cost the tennis authorities more money, and the latter is why it won't happen.

More clay?

Let me see.

Straight after the Australian Open, we have the gold swing of South America. That is four straight weeks of clay. Then after IW-Miami, we have clay from early April until Mid-June, including 3 Masters and a Slam. We get a month on the grass, and then...more European clay events for all of July including Gastaad, Hamburg, Umag, Bastaad all the way into August, when the HC masters start.

So, for a clay thriving player, they can play clay from February all the way until August, with only IW-Miami and Wimbledon to play in the middle. All this talk about there being no clay is bogus.

More Grass, and bring carpet back, I agree. But clay, nope, we have enough.

 

[Cup8489]

All of the Big 4 has an advantage over Nadal due to the skew towards HC!

Yet Nadal leads all H2H, and is the only one who can claim as much!

If there was true parity amongst the 3 surfaces (4 if you include carpet, which is hardly ever played on anymore); Nadal would surely have an even more impressive record vs his elite peers!!!


Next...

LOLWUT. Nadal would have better h2h's against the top 4 if there were more fast courts?

You can leave the thread now, you obviously know nothing about tennis.

 

[DRII]

LOLWUT. Nadal would have better h2h's against the top 4 if there were more fast courts?

You can leave the thread now, you obviously know nothing about tennis.

Thanks for proving yourself impotent once again.

If you can't discern my statement, just don't opine!

Take the blue pill...

 

[TMF]

All of the Big 4 has an advantage over Nadal due to the skew towards HC!

Yet Nadal leads all H2H, and is the only one who can claim as much!

If there was true parity amongst the 3 surfaces (4 if you include carpet, which is hardly ever played on anymore); Nadal would surely have an even more impressive record vs his elite peers!!!

Next...

The courts have been slow down considerably to Nadal's liking. He's benefits the most due to his style. OTOH, players like Roddick, Berdych, Del Potro, Hewitt, Federer, etc. preferred the fast court.

Thanks for proving yourself impotent once again.

If you can't discern my statement, just don't opine!

Take the blue pill...

Then why Nadal doesn't have much success on fast court?
Food for thought.

 

[cc0509]

All of the Big 4 has an advantage over Nadal due to the skew towards HC!

Yet Nadal leads all H2H, and is the only one who can claim as much!

If there was true parity amongst the 3 surfaces (4 if you include carpet, which is hardly ever played on anymore); Nadal would surely have an even more impressive record vs his elite peers!!!


Next...

When Nadal joined the tour, did he not know that the tour was skewed towards HC? He was at no more of a disadvantage than any other player, many of whom also grew up playing on clay.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

I say we need more grass tournaments not more clay, there is enough clay. As for hc, I think the mix is just fine.

Hard-courts are the bane of tennis. All they're good for is wrecking players' bodies and their longevity. I think this crop of old geezers in the top 30 will be the last of them we see, since the hard-courts are practically a plague amongst the ATP calendar. Hopefully they phase out the indoor season and replace it with a more suitable surface.

 

[cc0509]

Hard-courts are the bane of tennis. All they're good for is wrecking players' bodies and their longevity. I think this crop of old geezers in the top 30 will be the last of them we see, since the hard-courts are practically a plague amongst the ATP calendar. Hopefully they phase out the indoor season and replace it with a more suitable surface.

Don't bet on it. Hard courts are the least expensive to maintain. Tennis is a business.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Don't bet on it. Hard courts are the least expensive to maintain. Tennis is a business.

Because tennis is all about money, isn't it? Money money money. That's why the USOpen is such a pathetic tournament, they want to try to maximise profit and don't care at all about the players.

 

[cc0509]

Because tennis is all about money, isn't it? Money money money. That's why the USOpen is such a pathetic tournament, they want to try to maximise profit and don't care at all about the players.

What should tennis be about if not money? Go live in some underdeveloped country if you don't want to see the entertainment business (which tennis basically is) care about money.

 

[Mike Sams]

All of the Big 4 has an advantage over Nadal due to the skew towards HC!

Yet Nadal leads all H2H, and is the only one who can claim as much!

If there was true parity amongst the 3 surfaces (4 if you include carpet, which is hardly ever played on anymore); Nadal would surely have an even more impressive record vs his elite peers!!!


Next...

Nadal has been a pro longer than Djoker and Murray. He has the clear experience advantage over them. Nadal's practice partner used to be Carlos Moya growing up. CLEAR ADVANTAGE FOR RAFA!

 

[Mike Sams]

Hard-courts are the bane of tennis. All they're good for is wrecking players' bodies and their longevity. I think this crop of old geezers in the top 30 will be the last of them we see, since the hard-courts are practically a plague amongst the ATP calendar. Hopefully they phase out the indoor season and replace it with a more suitable surface.

I didn't see any other player whining and moaning about HCs except Nadal. Did you? :lol:

 

[Cup8489]

Thanks for proving yourself impotent once again.

If you can't discern my statement, just don't opine!

Take the blue pill...

You talk of impotency to me, but yet you produce the most impotent arguments of anyone on these boards.

Your post suggested an equal amount of all surfaces during the calendar year. Nadal has mostly dominated the other big four in the first half of the year, which includes the slower hardcourt events and clay.

The second half of the year includes grass, faster hardcourts, and indoor events. You suggested we bring back carpet as well, a surface that Nadal has won exactly one big title on (Madrid 05), and a surface that the other top 4 players have done better on than him (see WTF results for them, Djoker and Fed have both won it on carpet, Murray has beaten them both on carpet, neither statement is true for Nadal).

So if we reduced the calendar to include an equal amount of events for each surface, ie roughly 2 masters and a major, plus an appropriate number of smaller tournaments for each surface, Nadal's h2h versus the top 4 would suffer. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

Nadal dominates Federer and Djokovic on clay. But outside of that surface, both players have winning h2h's. Reducing the slow clay and hardcourt events to a smaller amount than before actually gives them more opportunity to beat him.. especially for Fed who dominates on indoor and carpet surfaces.

Murray just panics when he sees nadal period, but the majority of Murray's wins against Nadal came on faster hardcourts. Nadal won their only WTF meeting in 3 sets in 2010, with a 3rd set TB required. Hardly convincing, and you wanna give Murray more chances to beat him on faster surfaces?

How is that for 'impotency', my ill-informed antagonist?

 

[Towser83]

There should be more clay, more grass, more carpet, and less hardcourts. It would mean players' careers lasting longer, and having a more diversified tour, but it will cost the tennis authorities more money, and the latter is why it won't happen.

If there was more grass and carpet at the expense of HC, the balance would be fine and there wouldn't actually need to be more clay.

9 masters and clay has a 3rd, if HC also had a 3rd and the remaining 3 being grass or 2 grass 1 carpet, or grass, carpet, indoor hard, that would be pretty balanced.

 

[Towser83]

All of the Big 4 has an advantage over Nadal due to the skew towards HC!

Yet Nadal leads all H2H, and is the only one who can claim as much!

If there was true parity amongst the 3 surfaces (4 if you include carpet, which is hardly ever played on anymore); Nadal would surely have an even more impressive record vs his elite peers!!!


Next...

I thinkif you read what you posted again you will realise the points in the first and second paragraphs don't combine for a good argument.

Surface distribution amongst THE TOUR, does not directly effect the H2H. The surface distribution in the meetings of the actual H2H effects the H2H.Doesn't matter if there was only 1 tournament on clay, if Nadalonly met players there then the fact that the rest of the tour is on HC doesn't give the other guy the advantage in H2H, it just gives them an advantage in winning titles.

I do appreciate though sometimes people can't seperate h2H with achievements.

Now in terms of Nadal vs the top 4, he has met Murray more times on HC than clay, and hold a slim 6-5 H2H if I'm correct. So kudos to Nadal there. Vs Djokovic he has also would up playing more HC matches than clay ones recently, though factoring in grass as a better surface for nadal, it would be 17 on clay/grass and 16 on hardcourt. That's very close and reflected by a fairly close H2H. But again Kudos to Nadal for holding the lead despite less clay matches than HC. Vs Federer he has played him a lot more on clay than Hc. Using HC/grass vs clay it would be HC/Grass 15 and clay 14, although Nadal is pretty handy on grass. Fed's best bet for displaying dominace in on fast HC or indoor HC. He's played Nadal 4 times on Indoor hard vs 14 times on clay.

Still, kudos to nadal doing so well vs federer. But just saying a hc majority does not give him a disadvantage in the H2H with any player, that is only decided by how many times they play on each surface.

Also if there was more parity there would be more Grass and carpet.Carpet would not suit Nadal very well at all and not sure Nadal would do any better vs Federer on grass than he has on Hard.against Djokovic and Murray probably, but grass vs Federer is probably the same as HC (fast grass giving Fed a bigger advantage) so surface parity would not really improve his H2H that much - there's a good chance the distribution of the meetings would be the same. So much hard court yet he's played fed most times on clay.

 

[Mike Sams]

How about having 2 indoor Masters tournaments, 3 clay Masters tournaments, 2 outdoor hardcourt Masters tournaments and 2 grass Masters tournaments?

Right now it's 4 outdoor hardcourt Masters, 3 clay Masters, and 2 Indoor Masters.

 

[DRII]

You talk of impotency to me, but yet you produce the most impotent arguments of anyone on these boards.

Your post suggested an equal amount of all surfaces during the calendar year. Nadal has mostly dominated the other big four in the first half of the year, which includes the slower hardcourt events and clay.

The second half of the year includes grass, faster hardcourts, and indoor events. You suggested we bring back carpet as well, a surface that Nadal has won exactly one big title on (Madrid 05), and a surface that the other top 4 players have done better on than him (see WTF results for them, Djoker and Fed have both won it on carpet, Murray has beaten them both on carpet, neither statement is true for Nadal).

So if we reduced the calendar to include an equal amount of events for each surface, ie roughly 2 masters and a major, plus an appropriate number of smaller tournaments for each surface, Nadal's h2h versus the top 4 would suffer. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

Nadal dominates Federer and Djokovic on clay. But outside of that surface, both players have winning h2h's. Reducing the slow clay and hardcourt events to a smaller amount than before actually gives them more opportunity to beat him.. especially for Fed who dominates on indoor and carpet surfaces.

Murray just panics when he sees nadal period, but the majority of Murray's wins against Nadal came on faster hardcourts. Nadal won their only WTF meeting in 3 sets in 2010, with a 3rd set TB required. Hardly convincing, and you wanna give Murray more chances to beat him on faster surfaces?

How is that for 'impotency', my ill-informed antagonist?

Again, you just don't get it!

The current tour is heavily played on HC, which hurts Nadal yet he still leads his major rivals h2h...

Please try your best to understand that!

If the tour was more evenly, some would even say fairly, divided between HC, clay, and grass at the biggest tournaments it would benefit Nadal! He is by far the best clay courter and the 2nd best grass courter. His record would be even more impressive.

Just count yourself (and other Nadal haters) lucky that the majority of the tour is played on HC; otherwise you would be even more consumed by hate and delusion...

 

[DRII]

I thinkif you read what you posted again you will realise the points in the first and second paragraphs don't combine for a good argument.

Surface distribution amongst THE TOUR, does not directly effect the H2H. The surface distribution in the meetings of the actual H2H effects the H2H.Doesn't matter if there was only 1 tournament on clay, if Nadalonly met players there then the fact that the rest of the tour is on HC doesn't give the other guy the advantage in H2H, it just gives them an advantage in winning titles.

I do appreciate though sometimes people can't seperate h2H with achievements.

Now in terms of Nadal vs the top 4, he has met Murray more times on HC than clay, and hold a slim 6-5 H2H if I'm correct. So kudos to Nadal there. Vs Djokovic he has also would up playing more HC matches than clay ones recently, though factoring in grass as a better surface for nadal, it would be 17 on clay/grass and 16 on hardcourt. That's very close and reflected by a fairly close H2H. But again Kudos to Nadal for holding the lead despite less clay matches than HC. Vs Federer he has played him a lot more on clay than Hc. Using HC/grass vs clay it would be HC/Grass 15 and clay 14, although Nadal is pretty handy on grass. Fed's best bet for displaying dominace in on fast HC or indoor HC. He's played Nadal 4 times on Indoor hard vs 14 times on clay.

Still, kudos to nadal doing so well vs federer. But just saying a hc majority does not give him a disadvantage in the H2H with any player, that is only decided by how many times they play on each surface.

Also if there was more parity there would be more Grass and carpet.Carpet would not suit Nadal very well at all and not sure Nadal would do any better vs Federer on grass than he has on Hard.against Djokovic and Murray probably, but grass vs Federer is probably the same as HC (fast grass giving Fed a bigger advantage) so surface parity would not really improve his H2H that much - there's a good chance the distribution of the meetings would be the same. So much hard court yet he's played fed most times on clay.

I'm not including carpet, theres very few tournaments played on carpet anymore. Most indoor tournaments are played on hard court.

Again, I think it is a fallacy of some on this board that Nadal is not competitive on HCs; its simply not true. Most of Nadal's loses are to the other Big 4 on HCs. If more of the tour was played on grass and more clay (the big tournaments not all of the smaller clay tourneys that takes place outside the master's series which Nadal is mandated to compete and would choose to anyway being a top player) Nadal's record would logically benefit! The calendar would also be better for Nadal, since the big clay tournaments would not be packed so close together and then Wimbledon directly afterwards. As we have seen many times Nadal tends to get or further injure himself during or just after this part of the year playing back to back to back tournaments; while Federer, Nole, or Murray usually skip on or two of the clay tourneys.

So to say surface distribution does not affect h2h is in all honesty misleading or at least misguided. Particularly in this era of shallow depth, where the big 4 are pretty much the big four on every surface. Every once in a while a few other players might take out one of the big 4 on a particular surface (Ferrer, Delpo, Tsonga, Berdych) might pull it off every once in a while affecting the semis. But for the most part surface distribution/parity will highly correlate to the surface meetings between the top 4. If we were in a deeper more competitive era then perhaps there would not be as high a correlation...

Your argument regarding Federer is sound, but again take out indoor hard and by only one match on grass; Nadal would lead Federer in every category h2h. Federer does deserve credit for being the 2nd best clay courter over the years (the last couple Nole has clearly been the 2nd best). But in all honesty the gap between Nadal and Federer on clay is far greater than the commensurate gaps Federer enjoys on hard or grass over Nadal...

 

[DRII]

How about having 2 indoor Masters tournaments, 3 clay Masters tournaments, 2 outdoor hardcourt Masters tournaments and 2 grass Masters tournaments?

Right now it's 4 outdoor hardcourt Masters, 3 clay Masters, and 2 Indoor Masters.

Yes, but remember indoor is a condition not a surface.

If we had indoor clay tournaments; I'm sure Nadal would still dominate those.

People allow the conditions at the O2 arena skew their perception of Nadal's abilities indoors. The O2 court has the absolute worst possible playing conditions for a player like Nadal, not necessarily because its indoors...

 

[Towser83]

Again, you just don't get it!

The current tour is heavily played on HC, which hurts Nadal yet he still leads his major rivals h2h...

Please try your best to understand that!

If the tour was more evenly, some would even say fairly, divided between HC, clay, and grass at the biggest tournaments it would benefit Nadal! He is by far the best clay courter and the 2nd best grass courter. His record would be even more impressive.

Just count yourself (and other Nadal haters) lucky that the majority of the tour is played on HC; otherwise you would be even more consumed by hate and delusion...

No you don't get it. The amount of HC tournaments might give nadal a disadvantage in WINNING TITLES, but it doesn't have to in H2H. He is only at a disadvantage H2H if he plays his rivals on HC more times than clay. Like I said if he played 20 tournaments on HC and 2 on clay but every year the only times he met his rivals was in the clay ones, then HE would have the advantage by playing them repeatedly on HIS favourite surface and never on THEIRS. It doesn't matter how much the tour is HC, in terms of H2H it's how many of the meetings between them are on HC. Doesn't matter if there's more HC if you actually meet more on clay. As I've said this is the case vs Fed but not Murray and Djokovic (though with murray it's mainly because he'snot that good on clay so doesn't get to Nadal often)

If Federer only ever played Nadal at the WTF and had a 4-0 record, do you think it would be fair to say that indoor hc is such a minority so Federer was at a disadvantage with Nadal in the H2H but was still 4-0, or do you think it would be fairer to say Fed had an ADVANTAGE in H2H because he got to play him on his best surface and not on clay?

I'm not including carpet, theres very few tournaments played on carpet anymore. Most indoor tournaments are played on hard court.

Again, I think it is a fallacy of some on this board that Nadal is not competitive on HCs; its simply not true. Most of Nadal's loses are to the other Big 4 on HCs. If more of the tour was played on grass and more clay (the big tournaments not all of the smaller clay tourneys that takes place outside the master's series which Nadal is mandated to compete and would choose to anyway being a top player) Nadal's record would logically benefit! The calendar would also be better for Nadal, since the big clay tournaments would not be packed so close together and then Wimbledon directly afterwards. As we have seen many times Nadal tends to get or further injure himself during or just after this part of the year playing back to back to back tournaments; while Federer, Nole, or Murray usually skip on or two of the clay tourneys.

So to say surface distribution does not affect h2h is in all honesty misleading or at least misguided. Particularly in this era of shallow depth, where the big 4 are pretty much the big four on every surface. Every once in a while a few other players might take out one of the big 4 on a particular surface (Ferrer, Delpo, Tsonga, Berdych) might pull it off every once in a while affecting the semis. But for the most part surface distribution/parity will highly correlate to the surface meetings between the top 4. If we were in a deeper more competitive era then perhaps there would not be as high a correlation...

Your argument regarding Federer is sound, but again take out indoor hard and by only one match on grass; Nadal would lead Federer in every category h2h. Federer does deserve credit for being the 2nd best clay courter over the years (the last couple Nole has clearly been the 2nd best). But in all honesty the gap between Nadal and Federer on clay is far greater than the commensurate gaps Federer enjoys on hard or grass over Nadal...

firstly,you originally included carpet which is why I mentioned it and it isn't at all on tour. But that's not really the point if we're talking about what surfaces SHOULD be on tour.

Again, there is enough clay. It has one slam and 3 masters. If there were 3 grass masters and 3 hc masters then the masters would be evenly split, grass and clay would have a slam each and HC would have 2, but there has to be one surface with 2 slams.Make one fast and one slow (AO is slow, make US open as fast as it was)

Also nadal has been down 2 sets to 0 plenty of times on grass, and has only won queens once so it isn't sound logic to simply assume he would win more on grass (all tournaments apart from slams and DC are best of 3). In theory he should do a bit better, but the difference might be marginal. Especially as I AGREE that Nadal is under-rated on HC by some people. Also Nadal did better in his first couple of HC matches vs Federer (won first 4 sets on HC) than he did in his first couple of grass matches even though the grass matches were later on, so maybe Nadal would actually do worse to begin with.

About the gaps between ability on different surfaces, I agree nadal is the best on any one surface while federer is better as an all court player, but that'snot really my point. My point is with so much hc that will disadvantage a player who is not as good on hc as his rivals, but only in terms of winning titles. in H2H it's how many times they played on eachother's favourite surfaces.

If Nadal played a great HC player 20 times but they were all on clay, you CANNOT say nadal had a disadvantage because there is more HC on tour. What difference does it make how much is on tour if your meetings with a player did not reflect that HC bias? That's the point, HC may outweigh clay on tour but in H2H meets vs Federer there have been 14 on clay vs 11 on HC (lean towards clay regardless of the way the tour is structured) and vs Djokovic 14 on clay and 16 on HC (lean to hardcourt but fairly even, not reflective of the distribution between clay and HC on tour)

Again, Nadal has not had a surface advantage in the H2H vs Murray or Djokovic, he has vs Federer but would probably still lead anyway since he is more dominant on his best surface compared to fed on his. But Just saying you can't argue that as well as having a leading H2H he is actually unlucky it wasn't more just becasue the tour is more Hc, when despite this he still played fed more times on clay.

Hope i've made my point..

 

[Murrayfan31]

Yes, but remember indoor is a condition not a surface.

If we had indoor clay tournaments; I'm sure Nadal would still dominate those.

People allow the conditions at the O2 arena skew their perception of Nadal's abilities indoors. The O2 court has the absolute worst possible playing conditions for a player like Nadal, not necessarily because its indoors...

You might think that way but you would be wrong. Indoors changes everything. Much easier to hit through a player without wind and sun. Thus harder for Nadal to play defense with much better attacking tennis.

 

[Mike Sams]

Indoor clay would be a great idea they should implement.

 

[wy2sl0]

I am all for more blue clay...since well, that is a real surface....not clumps of dirt that completely rid the ball of all pace and allow it to sit up 10 feet in the air.

 

[DRII]

No you don't get it. The amount of HC tournaments might give nadal a disadvantage in WINNING TITLES, but it doesn't have to in H2H. He is only at a disadvantage H2H if he plays his rivals on HC more times than clay. Like I said if he played 20 tournaments on HC and 2 on clay but every year the only times he met his rivals was in the clay ones, then HE would have the advantage by playing them repeatedly on HIS favourite surface and never on THEIRS. It doesn't matter how much the tour is HC, in terms of H2H it's how many of the meetings between them are on HC. Doesn't matter if there's more HC if you actually meet more on clay. As I've said this is the case vs Fed but not Murray and Djokovic (though with murray it's mainly because he'snot that good on clay so doesn't get to Nadal often)

If Federer only ever played Nadal at the WTF and had a 4-0 record, do you think it would be fair to say that indoor hc is such a minority so Federer was at a disadvantage with Nadal in the H2H but was still 4-0, or do you think it would be fairer to say Fed had an ADVANTAGE in H2H because he got to play him on his best surface and not on clay?



firstly,you originally included carpet which is why I mentioned it and it isn't at all on tour. But that's not really the point if we're talking about what surfaces SHOULD be on tour.

Again, there is enough clay. It has one slam and 3 masters. If there were 3 grass masters and 3 hc masters then the masters would be evenly split, grass and clay would have a slam each and HC would have 2, but there has to be one surface with 2 slams.Make one fast and one slow (AO is slow, make US open as fast as it was)

Also nadal has been down 2 sets to 0 plenty of times on grass, and has only won queens once so it isn't sound logic to simply assume he would win more on grass (all tournaments apart from slams and DC are best of 3). In theory he should do a bit better, but the difference might be marginal. Especially as I AGREE that Nadal is under-rated on HC by some people. Also Nadal did better in his first couple of HC matches vs Federer (won first 4 sets on HC) than he did in his first couple of grass matches even though the grass matches were later on, so maybe Nadal would actually do worse to begin with.

About the gaps between ability on different surfaces, I agree nadal is the best on any one surface while federer is better as an all court player, but that'snot really my point. My point is with so much hc that will disadvantage a player who is not as good on hc as his rivals, but only in terms of winning titles. in H2H it's how many times they played on eachother's favourite surfaces.

If Nadal played a great HC player 20 times but they were all on clay, you CANNOT say nadal had a disadvantage because there is more HC on tour. What difference does it make how much is on tour if your meetings with a player did not reflect that HC bias? That's the point, HC may outweigh clay on tour but in H2H meets vs Federer there have been 14 on clay vs 11 on HC (lean towards clay regardless of the way the tour is structured) and vs Djokovic 14 on clay and 16 on HC (lean to hardcourt but fairly even, not reflective of the distribution between clay and HC on tour)

Again, Nadal has not had a surface advantage in the H2H vs Murray or Djokovic, he has vs Federer but would probably still lead anyway since he is more dominant on his best surface compared to fed on his. But Just saying you can't argue that as well as having a leading H2H he is actually unlucky it wasn't more just becasue the tour is more Hc, when despite this he still played fed more times on clay.

Hope i've made my point..

You've stated your point, but I find it at odds with current reality and therefore disagree. In general and in theory what you say makes sense but it just doesn't jive with the obvious state of things...

Again, the Big 4 are the Big 4 on all surfaces for the most part; especially since 2008 (perhaps not before especially with Nadal vs Federer - Nadal was not making it deep into the big HC tourneys as much pre 2008, which helps explain why the two have met on clay so often)...

Therefore it is logical to assume that a change in surface distribution would nearly equally affect H2H surface meeting distribution. As you've already stated Nadal, Murray, and Nole have a pretty even distribution amongst their H2H meetings regarding surface (most likely because they are closer in age and matured together). The only relationship amongst the Big 4 that would appreciably change with even surface distribution on tour from the beginning would be Federer and Nadal (mainly because Nadal was a clay court phenom from the beginning and was meeting and beating Federer on that surface at the start but took longer to become competitive on HCs)...

So basically with more clay court and grass tournaments; Nadal would have more of an advantage. Not just because he's better on clay and grass than on HCs but also because Nadal's schedule would not be so compressed between the French and Wimbledon (less injuries)!

 

[DRII]

You might think that way but you would be wrong. Indoors changes everything. Much easier to hit through a player without wind and sun. Thus harder for Nadal to play defense with much better attacking tennis.

Uhm not really...

Its true that indoors requires less margin, and theres no doubt Nadal has the most margin of any of the great players in history!

But his defense can be just as good indoors as outdoors.

The thing about the O2 arena is that it has hardly any bounce and therefore Nadal's spin is less devastating and delivers less carnage amongst his opponents!

 

[Towser83]

You've stated your point, but I find it at odds with current reality and therefore disagree. In general and in theory what you say makes sense but it just doesn't jive with the obvious state of things...

Again, the Big 4 are the Big 4 on all surfaces for the most part; especially since 2008 (perhaps not before especially with Nadal vs Federer - Nadal was not making it deep into the big HC tourneys as much pre 2008, which helps explain why the two have met on clay so often)...

Therefore it is logical to assume that a change in surface distribution would nearly equally affect H2H surface meeting distribution. As you've already stated Nadal, Murray, and Nole have a pretty even distribution amongst their H2H meetings regarding surface (most likely because they are closer in age and matured together). The only relationship amongst the Big 4 that would appreciably change with even surface distribution on tour from the beginning would be Federer and Nadal (mainly because Nadal was a clay court phenom from the beginning and was meeting and beating Federer on that surface at the start but took longer to become competitive on HCs)...

So basically with more clay court and grass tournaments; Nadal would have more of an advantage. Not just because he's better on clay and grass than on HCs but also because Nadal's schedule would not be so compressed between the French and Wimbledon (less injuries)!

Well I'm just saying more HC doesn't automatically lead to meeting rivals more often on HC than clay. Looking at Djokovic and Nadal they have only met twice more on HC than clay DESPITE HC far outnumbering clay. The H2H surface distribution does not reflect the tour surface distribution with either Federer or Djokovic, it probably does with Murray.

Ironically, when Nadal did start making HC finals all the time 2011/2012 was when fans like you said he was playing worse than usual, even on HC.

Also I don't really think there is enough evidence for what would happen if Nadal played on grass more. How many times would he lose to random people like Tsonga, Lopez, Kohlschrieber, Haase, Petzschner, Soderling (all people who have beaten him at queens or been 2 sets to 1 or 0 up against him at Wimbledon) Nadal has sometimes struggled with lesser players on grass, but usually comes through at Wimbledon because he has a champion's mentality. Easier for lesser players to pull of an upset in best of 3.

Also there is enough clay, no need for more. Just put half the HC tournies on grass and it would be pretty even in a 3 way split. I find that people wanting more clay as well as grass at least subconsciously want to favour Nadal and have more clay than anything else, and don't really want a 3 way even split.

Likewise, anyone facing reality can see Nadal has done an awesome job of leading the H2H agaisnt all his rivals, so there is no need to make out that he is also unlucky regarding H2H. As I said despite less clay, he's had PLENTY of clay meetings with Fed and Djokovic (not so much with murray because Murray is not so good on clay) What do you want? To have twice as many meetings on clay than any other surface? Despite HC outnumber clay, Nadal's meetings with Fed and Djokovic have NOT reflected this at all. He's met them on the surface he owns a fair amount of times. You forget it's not like he's meeting them in every masters event. Look at it since 2008 which many people say was the start of his prime.

2008
Met Djokovic 2 times on clay and 3 times on HC
Met Federer 3 times on clay and 0 times on HC

2009
Met Djokovic 4 times on Clay and 3 times on HC
Met Federer 1 times on each

2010
Met Djokovic 2 times on HC and 0 on clay
Met Federer 1 time on each surface

2011
he met Djokovic 2 times on Clay and 3 times on HC
Met Federer twice each

2012
Met Djokovic 3 times on clay 1 time on HC
Met Federer 2 times on HC and 0 on clay

There's not much bias towards HC at all.

Totals

vs Djokovic 12 on Hc and 11 on clay. Pretty even.
vs Federer 6 on HC and 7 on clay. Again pretty even. The total adding both players is 18-18.

Hence the surface distribution as biased towards HC as it is, has resulted in a H2H played fairly evenly over clay and HC the past 5 years. You can see this as a fact. Their meetings since 2008 have been evenly spread over HC and clay. More clay would simply mean that Nadal played them more often on clay than hard court IF they proved better at reaching Clay semis/finals than he did at doing the same on HC. Which is an odd thing to think fair if you also complain that the bigger amount of HC gives an advantage in winning titles. A case of wanting an advantage in the H2H (in terms of playing on Nadal's favourite surface more than the other player's favourite surfaces) but then bemoaning the advantage of HC players with regards to titles.

Lastly, one of the big things you forget is, with a dense period of 3 masters and a slam on clay, it's likely that the top 4 contest the latter stages. With so much HC spread over the whole season, they don't all make the latter stages of (or even enter) the same events at the same time. Thus the HC meetings remain the same as the clay ones.

 

[Murrayfan31]

Uhm not really...

Its true that indoors requires less margin, and theres no doubt Nadal has the most margin of any of the great players in history!

But his defense can be just as good indoors as outdoors.

The thing about the O2 arena is that it has hardly any bounce and therefore Nadal's spin is less devastating and delivers less carnage amongst his opponents!

Without the sun, Nadal doesn't get that nice high bounce. The ball doesn't bounce as high indoors because of the cooler conditions. And no wind allows players to take bigger risks. Djokovic and Federer being the biggest benefits if clay went indoors.

 

[TMF]

I don't care if there's a 1000 tournament on hard court and only 1 tournament on clay. If two players only meet on clay, the h2h will be in favor of the player who's a clay specialist, regardless if the other player is a goat on hard court.

 

[Clay lover]

Good points.

Not to mention Djokovic's defense is better than Federer's. He is so good at getting the ball back deep and with interest. ON hardcourts, he may not be a better retriever than Nadal, but he is definitely the better counterpuncher!

 

[Crisstti]

Also I don't really think there is enough evidence for what would happen if Nadal played on grass more. How many times would he lose to random people like Tsonga, Lopez, Kohlschrieber, Haase, Petzschner, Soderling (all people who have beaten him at queens or been 2 sets to 1 or 0 up against him at Wimbledon) Nadal has sometimes struggled with lesser players on grass, but usually comes through at Wimbledon because he has a champion's mentality. Easier for lesser players to pull of an upset in best of 3.

I don't think his results at Queens are much to go by. It does start right after RG, plus he sees it as just a preparation to Wimbledon, to adapt to grass. With a longer grass season, with masters, I would certainly expect him to do better than in Quees/Halle.

 

[Gonzo_style]

How about having 2 indoor Masters tournaments, 3 clay Masters tournaments, 2 outdoor hardcourt Masters tournaments and 2 grass Masters tournaments?

Right now it's 4 outdoor hardcourt Masters, 3 clay Masters, and 2 Indoor Masters.

It's only one, in Paris. Shanghai is Outdoor but they have a roof and sometimes matches were played Indoor.

 

[TMF]

I don't think his results at Queens are much to go by. It does start right after RG, plus he sees it as just a preparation to Wimbledon, to adapt to grass. With a longer grass season, with masters, I would certainly expect him to do better than in Quees/Halle.

But Nadal is perfect at Barcelona, but struggled/lost at Queen. And Queen is much more important than Barcelona since it's the only warm up tourney to prepare for Wimbledon.

 

[Gonzo_style]

But Nadal is perfect at Barcelona, but struggled/lost at Queen. And Queen is much more important than Barcelona since it's the only warm up tourney to prepare for Wimbledon.

Barcelona is ATP 500, Queens ATP 250

 

[Towser83]

I don't think his results at Queens are much to go by. It does start right after RG, plus he sees it as just a preparation to Wimbledon, to adapt to grass. With a longer grass season, with masters, I would certainly expect him to do better than in Quees/Halle.

Well I'm saying there's not enough evidence. I certainly agree Queens/Halle is not a perfect event to draw conclusions from, but I was seeking to counter the assumption that Nadal would very logically do better at grass tournaments, with another possibility. Not because I think I am right, but I could be. We don't have enough evidence either way. Also like I said he has had some scares at Wimbledon where he would have been out in a 3 set match. I do agree that often players look at Queens/Halle as a warm up, though Nadal won in in 2008 and Federer often has come from the RG final to winning Halle. Not saying Nadal woudn't win grass masters but it's not an automatic conclusion that he would either.