Federer and Nadal and 90% Winning Seasons

[namelessone]

No, it's the number of tournaments he's played in the past 12 months.

Ok, thanks for the clarifications.

 

[jones101]

Fed so far has played

Doha
AO
IW
Miami
Rome
Estoril
Madrid
FO
Halle
Wimbledon
Canada
Cincy
US Open

and scheduled to play

Shanghai
Stockholm
Basel
Paris
WTF

18 max total for the year

 

[TMF]

Really, is this the best some of you can come up with? Why didn't Nadal have a 90% winning season yet? Funny ass s**t. He had a 89,88 and in 2010 he will probably finish around 87-88. We speak of 1-2% but that's maybe 2-3 more matches lost in the overall ecuation. And not big matches at that. No one can tell me that Nadal was full throttle in queens and bangkok, but those still count as two losses in a otherwise stellar year.

Maybe I am mistaken, but wasn't Nadal the youngest guy to have 400 wins in almost 500 atp matches in his career? I'd say that's pretty freaking good considering that most of his matches occur on his worst surface(whereas Fed's occured on his best surface). Imagine a tour made of 65% clay like we have with hc today. Nadal would probably have 90% winning rate year after year.

It doesn't matter how close Nadal gets, he doesn't belong with in the same group of players until he earned it. 90%+ is a great feat and they kept a records for all players in the atp and wta. Would you award Mac for a RG title? He was very close too....1 set away from winning it. YOu guys use rafa "career slam" against Lendl when comparing their achievement. How about award Lendl the career slam too? He was very close at SW19. But funny you guys never mentioned this. I'm tired of you guys double standard.


Your argument about the tour made 65% clay is poor. On average, the entire field are better on other surface than clay. It's more competitive and tougher to win on hc. Nadal and a few others are built to play on clay, but most are comfortable on hc.

 

[namelessone]

Your argument about the tour made 65% clay is poor. On average, the entire field are better on other surface than clay. It's more competitive and tougher to win on hc. Nadal and a few others are built to play on clay, but most are comfortable on hc.

Did you ever stop to think why more players play better on HC genius? HC tennis is easier to pick up because movement is not crucial and you can succeed with a big serve and big forehand. Sliding on clay and moving on grass can take years to learn properly. But the REAL reason why there are more good HC players than clay/grass players nowadays is *drum roll* THERE ARE WAY MORE TOURNAMENTS!!!

HC has about 65% of the tour. If you were a coach you want your kid to learn HC first, other surfaces later because he will be doing the bulk of his tourneys on hardcourts. This is not a new situation. HC came into its own in the late 80's. In the 60's,70's most of the tour was played on grass with clay thrown into the mix. Guess what, there were a lot of great grass players in that period because of it. The only guys that didn't like it were the guys who focused solely on clay because of the stark differences at the time.

Trust me, if you favour a surface on tour via nr. of tourneys, more great players come out of that surface due to the numbers of it all. In fact I would say clay season has been the most stable of them all. Grass once ruled the tour, 3 out of 4 slams were on grass, now it has been relegated to Queens,Halle and WB. HC was a non-factor in the past and now 2 out of 4 slams are on HC, 6 out of 9 masters and 65% of the tour is on this surface.

 

[ZhingJ]

Did you ever stop to think why more players play better on HC genius? HC tennis is easier to pick up because movement is not crucial and you can succeed with a big serve and big forehand. Sliding on clay and moving on grass can take years to learn properly. But the REAL reason why there are more good HC players than clay/grass players nowadays is *drum roll* THERE ARE WAY MORE TOURNAMENTS!!!

HC has about 65% of the tour. If you were a coach you want your kid to learn HC first, other surfaces later because he will be doing the bulk of his tourneys on hardcourts. This is not a new situation. HC came into its own in the late 80's. In the 60's,70's most of the tour was played on grass with clay thrown into the mix. Guess what, there were a lot of great grass players in that period because of it. The only guys that didn't like it were the guys who focused solely on clay because of the stark differences at the time.

Trust me, if you favour a surface on tour via nr. of tourneys, more great players come out of that surface due to the numbers of it all. In fact I would say clay season has been the most stable of them all. Grass once ruled the tour, 3 out of 4 slams were on grass, now it has been relegated to Queens,Halle and WB. HC was a non-factor in the past and now 2 out of 4 slams are on HC, 6 out of 9 masters and 65% of the tour is on this surface.

This is precisely the reason why is it tougher to dominate on HC than on clay.