Djokovic will play 4 clay tournaments before the French, surely thats too much?

[Deleted member 54563]

Nadal's status as the king of CLAY RIGHT NOW is on hold. He was comprehensively beaten by one of his rivals on the surface.

Nadal will certainly go down and be remembered in history as the king of clay in this era, but his past accomplishments and success have little bearing on his ability on the surface RIGHT NOW compared to his rivals.

If he affords to lose in more venues like MC and specially RG to Novak (or any other of his rivals for that matter) too, he will be considered the fallen king of clay, I guess. It won't stop him from trying to recover his title in other coming seasons, but the status quo would then be indisputably changed.

 

[Deleted member 60695]

I'm glad Djokovic is playing in Monte-Carlo. Thus taking away the title that means most to Nadal. In some ways I feel bad for Nadal but he is no longer the king of clay.

Exactly! Nadal hasn't won the French Open in years.
Oh wait...
Nadal will win the French and Djokovic will lose in the semifinals. Same as last year.

 

[Murrayfan31]

Federer took it away from Djokovic. Not Nadal. Djokovic owns Nadal on clay.

 

[nadal_slam_king]

He's using the h2h argument endorsed by Rafa fans, on Rafa.

That's all. Tit for Tat.

Nadal leads Dj h2h overall, h2h at slams and h2h on clay.

 

[namelessone]

Nadal's status as the king of CLAY RIGHT NOW is on hold. He was comprehensively beaten by one of his rivals on the surface.

Nadal will certainly go down and be remembered in history as the king of clay in this era, but his past accomplishments and success have little bearing on his ability on the surface RIGHT NOW compared to his rivals.

If he affords to lose in more venues like MC and specially RG to Novak (or any other of his rivals for that matter) too, he will be considered the fallen king of clay, I guess. It won't stop him from trying to recover his title in other coming seasons, but the status quo would then be indisputably changed.

King of RG is pretty much always the king of clay that season, regardless of other results. Courier lost in every clay event(unlike say Nadal) before RG in 1991 but won RG that year. Was Courier not the king of clay at that point in time? In 1992, before he won RG again, he only won one clay event.

If you want a more recent example, see Costa in 2002, he won RG but before that he lost on clay that year to Grosjean,Gaudio,Agassi,Koubek.

Or Gaudio in 2004, he won RG but before that he lost on clay that year to Mayer,Hewitt,Robredo,Labadze,Fed.

These guys were all the kings of clay in those years because they won the most prestigious event on clay. Some of them lost 3-5 times on the surface beforehand but lifting this trophy let them stamp their name over the clay season that year. Guys like Ferrero,Coria,Moya won MS in some of those years but their names didn't ring out as loudly when talking about clay in those seasons as the RG winners did.

 

[monfed]

Nadal leads Dj h2h overall, h2h at slams and h2h on clay.

Prime Djokovic is 7-0(including 3-0 in slams,2-0 on clay) against Prime Nadal. Prime Nadal v/s Pre-prime Djokovic doesn't count for much if Djokovic overtakes Nadal in the overall H2H. So enjoy it while it lasts.
For example - Prime Hewitt was 7-1 against pre-prime Federer till 2003, but when Federer entered his prime in 04, he went 17-1 against Prime Hewitt.

 

[monfed]

Nadal's status as the king of CLAY RIGHT NOW is on hold. He was comprehensively beaten by one of his rivals on the surface.

Nadal will certainly go down and be remembered in history as the king of clay in this era, but his past accomplishments and success have little bearing on his ability on the surface RIGHT NOW compared to his rivals.

If he affords to lose in more venues like MC and specially RG to Novak (or any other of his rivals for that matter) too, he will be considered the fallen king of clay, I guess. It won't stop him from trying to recover his title in other coming seasons, but the status quo would then be indisputably changed.

Totally agree.

 

[Deleted member 54563]

King of RG is pretty much always the king of clay that season, regardless of other results. Courier lost in every clay event(unlike say Nadal) before RG in 1991 but won RG that year. Was Courier not the king of clay at that point in time? In 1992, before he won RG again, he only won one clay event.

If you want a more recent example, see Costa in 2002, he won RG but before that he lost on clay that year to Grosjean,Gaudio,Agassi,Koubek.

Or Gaudio in 2004, he won RG but before that he lost on clay that year to Mayer,Hewitt,Robredo,Labadze,Fed.

These guys were all the kings of clay in those years because they won the most prestigious event on clay. Some of them lost 3-5 times on the surface beforehand but lifting this trophy let them stamp their name over the clay season that year. Guys like Ferrero,Coria,Moya won MS in some of those years but their names didn't ring out as loudly when talking about clay in those seasons as the RG winners did.

Some people see this way but I think it's too short sighted to conclude this based on the result of just one tournament. RG might be the most prestigious out of the clay tournaments, but it's just one among a season filled with more than the two weeks worth of clay tennis from may 27 to june 10.

If one wins RG, he is the king of RG, which in itself is a great title to have and arguably makes it the best clay season as RG is the one that counts the most.

To be the king of CLAY (surface) though, one has to dominate the majority of the clay events entered in unquestionable fashion. Like Nadal did by raising the bar in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010.

As a Federer fan, as much as I wanted it's hard to say that Federer was the king of CLAY in 2009, despite not only winning RG but decisively beating his main rival Nadal in straights the only time they met (something that Nadal doesn't have on his resume to his defense last year).

Fed lost to Djokovic in the Rome semis (rain break played a great part) and exited on his first match in MC (took a late wildcard).
In addition, Nadal had too great a clay season that year by winning 3 clay tournaments, 2 being masters.

While he wasn't KING of clay in this view, he certainly caused an impact with his short-lived RG reign, which Rafa was quick to restore order the next year.

 

[Clarky21]

LOLZ

Clay season is not even started and I can already see all the Rafito fans, ****s and missing trolls already out of their groves.

It's a great time to be a tennis fans. Spring hunting season will officially start in two weeks from now on these boards.

Can't wait to see Rafa, official king of ROLAND GARROS (can't be the king of CLAY when there's a guy consistently beating him on the surface), playing again on his beloved surface.

On topic: That might hurt his serbian fans, but I think skipping the Serbian Open might do him favors in the summer when fatigue starts to accumulate. Unless he is somehow upset before the MC final, then playing on his soil for match practice might become a good option again.

Oh,bs. Djesus will never accomplish even half of what Nadal has on clay. I don't care if he makes the clay sweep this year or not. He will still never catch up to Nadal no matter what he does.

 

[jackson vile]

If need be, he will drop out citing injury just like Federer and Nadal do when they want a rest or focus on another tournament. Otherwise, he will be able to rack up all the points he will need in order to hold that #1.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Nadal leads Dj h2h overall, h2h at slams and h2h on clay.

Hrbarty leads H2H against Nadal.

 

[Rjtennis]

I would be suprised if he pulls out of a tourney if he is playing well.

 

[cc0509]

vernonbc;6443872]Djokovic has badly outplayed Nadal as of late? As of late, they've met once, at the Australian open. Even though you're trying to rewrite history, it doesn't work. There are facts. Djokovic had no more reason to be exhausted than Rafa - his qtr against Ferrer was straight sets, his semi against Murray was 5 but one of those was a fast easy breadstick. Rafa had two extremely tough matches - his 4 set qtr against Berdych had two tiebreakers as did his 4 set semi against Federer. He was no more fresh than Djokovic.

Djokovic hasn't exactly been setting the world on fire in the last six months or so. He got a bit lucky in Miami, he lost IW, he lost Dubai, barely squeaked by at the AO, lost at the WTF, pulled out halfway through Paris, lost at Basel, didn't bother to show up for Shanghai or Beijing/Tokyo, lost at Davis Cup. Why are all his losses and pullouts and withdrawals and injuries glossed over and everybody still talks about him as some super marvel of tennis. Don't get it.[/

Because despite all you write above, Djokovic is the only guy winning slams lately, how is that for a reason?

 

[El Diablo]

This thread illustrates why tennis, at the professional level, is a dreadful sport for fans. The OP is suggesting here that the clay tournaments in April and May should be viewed not as events in and of themselves, but rather as preparation for the French Open. As a fan, for the OP to not want all the top players at as many events as possible is truly bizarre, something I've not seen in any other sport. The sport will not flourish if smaller tournaments are not supported.

 

[ledwix]

This thread illustrates why tennis, at the professional level, is a dreadful sport for fans. The OP is suggesting here that the clay tournaments in April and May should be viewed not as events in and of themselves, but rather as preparation for the French Open. As a fan, for the OP to not want all the top players at as many events as possible is truly bizarre, something I've not seen in any other sport. The sport will not flourish if smaller tournaments are not supported.

I agree 100% and even 1000% if such ratios were possible. Of the 9 most prestigious events outside of slams, the masters 1000 events, many of them are considered a "waste of time" around these boards. Even the 1500 event at the end of the year "doesn't count" and is "meaningless" since apparently everyone is automatically too tired to play well, despite there being only three necessary tournaments to play after early September. And even then, some top players choose to not show up in Paris or Shanghai.

It being "a smart move" for a player to tank Miami after winning Indian Wells or tanking Cincinnati after winning Toronto is just the opposite of what a sport should be like. How could any tennis player be considered a fighter if they don't give 100% in every match?