How many other ATG candidates have a 3-6 Finals record at a slam on a surface they are supposed to be GOAT of?

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
How many ATGs in the Open Era even made 6 USO finals on hardcourt to lose them? Only 5 in 43 years. If it was 0-6 or 1-6 you may have a point but he won it 3 times.
 
Last edited:

goldengate14

Professional
Come on, now. I am actually bringing a valid point, am I not? I want somebody to explain to me how Nadal having only 7 non-clay slams (outside his favorite surface, competing in the era of the two GOATs in those surfaces) can be accused of being lackluster when Djokovic has a 3-6 Finals record in a HC slam. Seriously, this is a simple observation. Hasn't anyone thought about it before?
Not sure how this thread is being accused of trolling when it is a valid question when there is a thread saying Nadal did not have an era.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
I’m not sure where to rank Djoker at the USO. He’s easily top 5. I’m debating whether he belongs above McEnroe. McEnroe’s peak was absolutely amazing. But Djoker has been awesome there for so long. So it’s a peak vs a longevity preference.

Wins vs top 10 at the USO:

Lendl 19
Federer 16
Sampras 16
Djoker 14
Mcenroe 13
Connors 7
Nadal 7

I guess I’d go

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Lendl
4. McEnroe
5. Djoker


Djoker vs McEnroe was a very tough one to call. By my own admission, I am likely biased towards Mac. Mac and Djoker is too tough to pick. But I hate ties. So I gave it to Mac.

Djoker faced Federer a whopping 6 times at the USO, including 3 straight times while Federer was a 3-time, 4-time, and 5-time defending champion.

And I’m being consistent here. A while back, I had Federer slightly ahead of Djoker at the AO when they were at 6 titles each. Why? Because Federer had more finals and he went to the semis 14 times in a 15 year span. But Djoker ended that debate a very long time ago. Djoker’s clearly the GOAT at the AO by a wide margin now.
 

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
No Chris never lost to Court at Wimbledon. She lost to arguably still peak King at Wimbledon 73 in the finals. And losing to a past her prime Goolagong in 80, while not terrible, is not a great loss either.
Oh yeah, I messed up there. But Chrissie lost to Court at freaking Roland Garros that same year, which I guess it's even worse considering both styles of play.
Chelsea-Barcelona 2009 was comedy though never seen so many bad ref decisions.
It would have been comedy if Ovrebo was making mistakes against both teams, the thing is that he only made mistakes against Chelsea.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
Just goes to show how bad other atg are in tennis especially in last 30 odd years, if a person with loosing record can make 18 final and win 12 slam with 26 master and 5 yec. ;)
 

socallefty

Legend
What am I supposed to learn from this thread - Djokovic is not good at hard court tennis and LeBron is not good at basketball? Or that they are not good enough at least to be the GOAT of their sport? Whatever, I can believe a TTW poster‘s opinion or my eyes.
 
Novak owns 1 HC GS title more than Fed, but he can't be HC GOAT because he played 4 more HC finals than Fed.
Did I get your argument right?
Having more finals makes you less great? :)
Nadal has a positive H2H against Djokovic at the USO, more titles than him, and Djokovic has a 3-6 record at the USO. This is on HC, his best surface. Nadal has a very unlucky 1-5 record at the AO, with 5 finals, outside his best surface. Do you see a pattern and some differences here? How can Nadal suck at the AO without Djokovic not sucking also at the USO? The difference is that the AO is not played on Nadal's favorite surface.
 
I'm only responding to the most important HC event garbage.
What is the most important HC event traditionally? I thought that was the USO. Sure, the AO and the USO are about equal in importance nowadays, but I thought tradition also played a part in the important of slam events. Nowadays the grass season is a joke. Should we demote the importance of Wimbledon because of that?
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal has a positive H2H against Djokovic at the USO, more titles than him, and Djokovic has a 3-6 record at the USO. This is on HC, his best surface. Nadal has a very unlucky 1-5 record at the AO, with 5 finals, outside his best surface. Do you see a pattern and some differences here? How can Nadal suck at the AO without Djokovic not sucking also at the USO? The difference is that the AO is not played on Nadal's favorite surface.
You are so misguided. Hardcourt is a neutral surface. It is the one surface where specialty is not needed like clay and grass, and therefore it is the vast majority of players' favorite surface. If you are not on another player's level on hardcourt, it is more of a knock on you that you didn't develop your game more on the easiest surface to play on which also has the most competition. Nadal didn't even make 6 finals at the USO. And how the hell are you trying to compare Nadal's record at the AO with Djokovic's at the USO when Nadal only has 1 title and Djokovic has 3? That is a huge difference. You can never suck at a tournament you won 3 times even if you had 10 losses in the finals.
 
So your statement that all slams are equal then breaks down here is what you are saying.

You see beyond you going against your own words in this scenario shows that the statement - All slams are equal - cannot hold up all the time.


So what happens here is, we have a sliding level of subjectivity, where our subjective views will decide where and when that statement begins to show validity again. For you it is at a different point to where it is for @Sunny014. You're both starting off at the same point, but for you the statement starts to look valid after a specific amount of things have happened, while for him it will start to look valid after different amount of things have happened.

I know all about context, believe me, if you have read my posts, you know how I deliver my arguments, but the point I am making is this, this statement of all slams being equal doesn't hold true all the time, as you yourself go against it after the question I posed to you, the difference is, as we shift away from that extreme, where exactly is your head once again above sea level....

Nadal of course has an argument to being GOAT, heck I can say so does Sampras, and Laver and even Borg, but as you can see, where we perceive to put weight on achievements depends on our personal subjective view points. Yours is clearly different from Sunny's. :)
It is true that not all slams are equal. Even slams at the same venue are not equal. (For example, not all Wimbledon titles are equal).

I agree with you that there is a high degree of subjectivity here. In my view, I think Nadal has an extremely strong case for GOAT for the following reasons:

1. Only player to have challenged two other GOAT candidates successfully during their prime.
2. Only player who is undisputed GOAT of any surface (clay).
3. ATG record outside his best surface alone.
4. Youngest player to achieve the Non Calendar Year Grand Slam.
5. Very high peaks on all surfaces. Definitely much higher peak on clay than Fed and Djokovic, and very close peaks on HC (USO 2010) and grass (WB 2008) to the other two, though very reduced primes for easily understandable reasons.
6. Often hurdled by recurrent physical issues, which caused him to skip events or underperform severely, even failing to defend slams where he was incoming champion.

There are quite a few more points I don't want to think about now. I am a firm believer that Nadal's supremacy and extreme dedication on clay also hurt his chances to have a much better Wimbledon and HC record (which is already an ATG caliber record outside clay alone).

Please, don't compare me to Momo Stand Boy (Sunny014). Read his signature and laugh (or cry). I have nothing to do with him, and it baffles me you would say that.
 
You are so misguided. Hardcourt is a neutral surface. It is the one surface where specialty is not needed like clay and grass, and therefore it is the vast majority of players' favorite surface. If you are not on another player's level on hardcourt, it is more of a knock on you that you didn't develop your game more on the easiest surface to play on which also has the most competition. Nadal didn't even make 6 finals at the USO. And how the hell are you trying to compare Nadal's record at the AO with Djokovic's at the USO when Nadal only has 1 title and Djokovic has 3? That is a huge difference. You can never suck at a tournament you won 3 times even if you had 10 losses in the finals.
The way you use the world "neutral" is illogical. Neutral compared to what? Nadal grew up on clay, his game is tailored for clay. Is hardcourt a "neutral" surface for Nadal?

Also, which surface is more "neutral", the AO or the USO? I hope you can see the flaws in your reasoning now.

You are right, Nadal didn't make 6 Finals at the USO, but he still has more titles than Djokovic and he has beaten him twice in finals there. The difference is that Djokovic is a better HC player than Nadal overall (meaning that when you add up all their titles, Djokovic has more).
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
The way you use the world "neutral" is illogical. Neutral compared to what? Nadal grew up on clay, his game is tailored for clay. Is hardcourt a "neutral" surface for Nadal?

Also, which surface is more "neutral", the AO or the USO? I hope you can see the flaws in your reasoning now.

You are right, Nadal didn't make 6 Finals at the USO, but he still has more titles than Djokovic and he has beaten him twice in finals there. The difference is that Djokovic is a better HC player than Nadal overall (meaning that when you add up all their titles, Djokovic has more).
Federer also grew up on clay. That's not saying much. The tour is like 70% hardcourt. That's his choice to tailor his game for clay but don't act like he's at some disadvantage because he's behind certain players on hardcourt. That's no one's fault but his own. He and his team knew the layout of the tour way before he became pro.

They're both neutral genius.

Right, he doesn't have 6 finals. So in reality he didn't even make 6 finals to even go on to lose them. We also know he has more titles, which you've reminded us of at least 25 times in the last week, and he also has half the top 10 wins than Djokovic and less top 5 wins than Wawrinka, a player with 1 title. Nadal hasn't won a set against Djokovic on hardcourt in 8 years. Djokovic has won it twice since 2013 and so has Nadal, so the USO head to head is not as relevant as you'd like it to be.
 
Djokovic's insanely God like level at AO is what makes it look even more weighted than it actually is. Yes, Djokovic has 3 USO and 6 finals, but tell me this, do we hold Federer's inability to beat Djokovic in a Wimbledon final as a mark against him, or do we reward him by saying he is at least making the final, if he cannot win it....or do we say no, Pete is greater at Wimbledon because he never lost a final and win percentage is 100%?

Novak has lost a lot of USO finals, but would losing a couple of quarter finals make him look more of a HC GOAT? I personally don't think so, even with his underpeforming, he is still around 6th in the open era there, and outright dominant first place at AO.
I won't argue Djokovic hasn't had a great level at the AO. Not as dominant as Nadal at RG, but excellent nonetheless.

That being said, there are a lot of subtleties involved. In Fed's case, Fed has a clear handicap due to his age difference with Djokovic. People used to bring this up all the time in the Fedal era, when Djokovic wasn't a factor yet. But in Nadal's case, this age difference in my view was moot, because Fed has continued playing at a very high level up to 2017 (8 years after this supposed age difference was a disadvantage), and rather than work against Fed, I imagine it would have worked for him in Nadal's case, as Nadal didn't develop on HC until a few years later.

But now, consider the age difference advantage for Djokovic vs Federer. It has obviously benefited Djokovic a lot (and I mean A LOT). The Fedal age difference argument was always hogwash, but the Fedovic age difference argument is hard to ignore. Vulturing is a very strong word, because I think Djokovic is a great player on grass,, but in my humble opinion he has been the main beneficiary of Fed's aging. The fact the 2019 Final was so close simply speaks to Federer's greatness, if anything, and should put things a little bit in context.

Look, I might be overcompensating a little to counter the recent flurry of threads about Djokovic being undisputed GOAT, Nadal being garbage outside clay and a one-trick-pony, etc. But in essence, I truly believe what I am telling you. I still put Fed slightly (barely) over Nadal, and both of them over Djokovic. I might have an extraordinary talent to rationalize things to my advantage, but I am telling you that this is 100% how I feel.

I don't claim your arguments are not valid, by the way. There is a lot of subjectivity involved. I provide my reasons and I defend them. I don't think either of us are dumb trolls like Sunny014, and that is really all that matters, isn't it?
 

ffw2

Professional
I won't argue Djokovic hasn't had a great level at the AO. Not as dominant as Nadal at RG, but excellent nonetheless.

That being said, there are a lot of subtleties involved. In Fed's case, Fed has a clear handicap due to his age difference with Djokovic. People used to bring this up all the time in the Fedal era, when Djokovic wasn't a factor yet. But in Nadal's case, this age difference in my view was moot, because Fed has continued playing at a very high level up to 2017 (8 years after this supposed age difference was a disadvantage), and rather than work against Fed, I imagine it would have worked for him in Nadal's case, as Nadal didn't develop on HC until a few years later.

But now, consider the age difference advantage for Djokovic vs Federer. It has obviously benefited Djokovic a lot (and I mean A LOT). The Fedal age difference argument was always hogwash, but the Fedovic age difference argument is hard to ignore. Vulturing is a very strong word, because I think Djokovic is a great player on grass,, but in my humble opinion he has been the main beneficiary of Fed's aging. The fact the 2019 Final was so close simply speaks to Federer's greatness, if anything, and should put things a little bit in context.

Look, I might be overcompensating a little to counter the recent flurry of threads about Djokovic being undisputed GOAT, Nadal being garbage outside clay and a one-trick-pony, etc. But in essence, I truly believe what I am telling you. I still put Fed slightly (barely) over Nadal, and both of them over Djokovic. I might have an extraordinary talent to rationalize things to my advantage, but I am telling you that this is 100% how I feel.

I don't claim your arguments are not valid, by the way. There is a lot of subjectivity involved. I provide my reasons and I defend them. I don't think either of us are dumb trolls like Sunny014, and that is really all that matters, isn't it?
lol, whotf was that dude?
 
Federer also grew up on clay. That's not saying much. The tour is like 70% hardcourt. That's his choice to tailor his game for clay but don't act like he's at some disadvantage because he's behind certain players on hardcourt. That's no one's fault but his own. He and his team knew the layout of the tour way before he became pro.

They're both neutral genius.

Right, he doesn't have 6 finals. So in reality he didn't even make 6 finals to even go on to lose them. We also know he has more titles, which you've reminded us of at least 25 times in the last week, and he also has half the top 10 wins than Djokovic and less top 5 wins than Wawrinka, a player with 1 title. Nadal hasn't won a set against Djokovic on hardcourt in 8 years. Djokovic has won it twice since 2013 and so has Nadal, so the USO head to head is not as relevant as you'd like it to be.
Nadal has 5 Finals in Wimbledon, 5 Finals at the AO, and 5 Finals at the USO, despite the fact he has suffered multiple setbacks throughout the years requiring him to skip these events (9 times) or to severely underperform or withdraw due to physical issues. These surfaces aren't clay. Out of those 15, he has won 7 (nearly a 50% success rate) against two HC and Grass GOAT candidates. Do you think Nadal sucks outside of clay?

Also, do you consider all Wimbledon titles to be the same? Is the 2008 WB title worth just as much as the 2019 WB title? How old was Fed in 2019?
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
GS finals made on HC -

Fed - 14 (7 + 7)
Djokovic - 18 (9 + 9).

Djokovic created a lot more opportunities than Federer on hard courts. People often talk about their slam wins (12 vs 11) in debates but when you look at slam Finals made - Djokovic looks even greater on HC. I mean making 9 Finals in both USO and AO is insane stuff. He underachieved at USO IMO - he is clearly better there than his number of wins suggest.
 
GS finals made on HC -

Fed - 14 (7 + 7)
Djokovic - 18 (9 + 9).

Djokovic created a lot more opportunities than Federer on hard courts. People often talk about their slam wins (12 vs 11) in debates but when you look at slam Finals made - Djokovic looks even greater on HC. I mean making 9 Finals in both USO and AO is insane stuff.
So you are telling me that Djokovic has a lower success rate in HC slam finals?
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Let's not forget young Djokovic was stopped by prime Fed in USO semis - final for 3 years in a row. Without Fed he could have won at least one more.
 
Lower success rate but created more opportunities - hence became greater than Fed eventually.
Djokovic isn't greater than Fed, at all. He isn't greater than Nadal either. But if he gets to 24 slam titles I will reconsider (and I haven't changed the goalposts since yesterday).
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal has 5 Finals in Wimbledon, 5 Finals at the AO, and 5 Finals at the USO, despite the fact he has suffered multiple setbacks throughout the years requiring him to skip these events (9 times) or to severely underperform or withdraw due to physical issues. These surfaces aren't clay. Out of those 15, he has won 7 (nearly a 50% success rate) against two HC and Grass GOAT candidates. Do you think Nadal sucks outside of clay?

Also, do you consider all Wimbledon titles to be the same? Is the 2008 WB title worth just as much as the 2019 WB title? How old was Fed in 2019?
They've all had setbacks. Yea he's skipped these tournaments 9 times and in that timeframe, he never skipped RG and only once withdrew. Do you think that that's a coincidence when clay has way more grueling rallies? He centered every year around clay and RG because that's where he felt he had the best chance of winning. And of course he doesn't suck off clay. He has 7 Slams and beat Federer and Djokovic multiple times.

2019 Wimbledon is just as much worth 2008 Wimbledon. Neither was a tough draw and 22 year old Nadal played against 27 year old Federer in a tight, great match. In 2019, 32 year old Djokovic played a very tight match against 38 year old Federer, a match where he was completely outplayed in 2 of the sets and over half of the match. 38 year old Federer also defeated 33 year old Nadal in 4 in the SF. So oldest Federer was better than older Nadal.
 
Last edited:

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic isn't greater than Fed, at all. He isn't greater than Nadal either. But if he gets to 24 slam titles I will reconsider (and I haven't changed the goalposts since yesterday).
24 is too much. Guy already owns DCGS, most weeks as #1 record, masters record. If he wins 22 - Fedal will be clearly begind him unless you bring weak era argument in discussion.
 
They've all had setbacks. Yea he's skipped these tournaments 9 times and in that timeframe, he never skipped RG and only once withdrew. Do you think that that's a coincidence when clay has way more grueling rallies? He centered every year around clay and RG because that's where he felt he had the best chance of winning. And of courae he doesn't suck off clay. He has 7 Slams and beat Federer and Djokovic multiple times.
Fair enough. Why didn't he skip clay? Because he wasn't that injured. Usually it's the clay season that wears him out, causing him to underperform afterwards. I don't think Nadal strategically skipped a lot of slams, I think he was seriously hampered, or trying to prevent further wear and tear.
 
24 is too much. Guy already owns DCGS, most weeks as #1 record, masters record. If he wins 22 - Fedal will be clearly begind him unless you bring weak era argument in discussion.
What you are saying is reasonable, but a little subjective. Still I can't complain about the logic of your statement because logic plays only a small part. I might not share your view, but I can't fault it either.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic isn't greater than Fed, at all. He isn't greater than Nadal either. But if he gets to 24 slam titles I will reconsider (and I haven't changed the goalposts since yesterday).
How you measure the greatness? I use achievements. You better argue Fedal are better Tennis players who achieved less due to some factors. But Djokovic is already greater than both of you go by achievements.
 
They've all had setbacks. Yea he's skipped these tournaments 9 times and in that timeframe, he never skipped RG and only once withdrew. Do you think that that's a coincidence when clay has way more grueling rallies? He centered every year around clay and RG because that's where he felt he had the best chance of winning. And of course he doesn't suck off clay. He has 7 Slams and beat Federer and Djokovic multiple times.

2019 Wimbledon is just as much worth 2008 Wimbledon. Neither was a tough draw and 22 year old Nadal played against 26 year old Federer in a tight, great match. In 2019, 32 year old Djokovic played a very tight match against 38 year old Federer, a match where he was completely outplayed in 2 of the sets and over half of the match. 38 year old Federer also defeated Nadal in 4 in the SF. So oldest Federer was better than older Nadal.
LOL I just removed my Like of your post because you added the bolded part.

Do you really think that 2008 Fed would have dropped that turkey in the 5th set in 2019?
 
How you measure the greatness? I use achievements. You better argue Fedal are better Tennis players who achieved less due to some factors. But Djokovic is already greater than both of you go by achievements.
Achievements are achieved under different circumstances. If you just look at the numbers without taking into account the circumstances you are missing a big part of the picture. Do you have a specific algorithm to calculate GOATness?
 

Kralingen

Legend
At 23 I might place him neck to neck, but not above. This is all subjective stuff. I think Djoker has benefitted a lot from Fed's old age, more than anyone else.
I do agree with that to some extent. Personally it comes down to who has played the most high level tennis on aggregate to me, which is why I still believe in Fed who was hurt by competition. Obviously one can have any personal opinion they have, and in any case the big 3 are so close that any opinion is going to be backed up by a lot of factual correctness.

However that argument really only flies with even numbers. if the guy really did win 22 or 23 he would own basically any relevant stat over any player in tennis history.

Hypotheticals and competition should 100% be taken into account in situations with even numbers and similar resumes, even at 21 there would be no consensus, but with 2/3 more Slams I can’t see any argument for the other two if they’re still on 20.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Nadal has been Top 2 longer than either Fed or Djokovic. Do we want to count second places now?
Of course, second place counts. It just doesn't count as much as first and that's where Djokovic and Federer have outshone Nadal.

Yes, he has. The question is: If we split HC into Fast and Slow (even with the caveat you point out), or maybe between USO and AO, then Djokovic is only AO GOAT, which becomes a problem. But if you don't, then you have to acknowledge the fact that a 3-6 record at a HC slam finals is really bad.
Novak owns 1 HC GS title more than Fed, but he can't be HC GOAT because he played 4 more HC finals than Fed.
Did I get your argument right?
Having more finals makes you less great? :)
Itrium and Pheasant are right on this point. Here is where we know Genious is trolling. What does this 3-6 record at the U.S. Open actually represent? Whatever it is, it is not something “really bad.” This is just 1 slam and Djokovic’s 3-6 record there of 9 finals at one major is already more major finals than any Open Era player has reached across all majors except for 12 players excluding Djokovic himself. Genious, you see the 6 losses as a negative but it’s just part of a big positive.

I am trying to bring this to the logical conclusion that if a 3-6 record at the most important HC event in the calendar is not detrimental for Djokovic, then having "only" 7 slam outside clay shouldn't be detrimental for Nadal either.
It's not detrimental to Nadal. 7 non-clay majors are amazing. But in a GOAT discussion, Djokovic and Federer's 18 and 19 non-clay majors, respectively, are even more amazing.

Nadal has a positive H2H against Djokovic at the USO, more titles than him, and Djokovic has a 3-6 record at the USO. This is on HC, his best surface. Nadal has a very unlucky 1-5 record at the AO, with 5 finals, outside his best surface. Do you see a pattern and some differences here? How can Nadal suck at the AO without Djokovic not sucking also at the USO? The difference is that the AO is not played on Nadal's favorite surface.
Nadal is actually 1-4 in AO finals. Funny that you stuck that "unlucky" in there showing your bias. In any case, Nadal doesn't suck at the Australian Open. 5 finals are very admirable, but again, they aren't nearly as great as what Djokovic and Federer achieved there. As for the USO, you're stuck on cherry-picking some stats without seeing the big picture and that is how they have performed overall there. Djokovic's 81-13 is a slightly higher winning percentage than Nadal's 64-11. So while Nadal has one more USO title than Djokovic, Djokovic has won 17 more matches there and has a better win rate than Nadal.

I agree with you that there is a high degree of subjectivity here. In my view, I think Nadal has an extremely strong case for GOAT for the following reasons:

1. Only player to have challenged two other GOAT candidates successfully during their prime.
Djokovic has done the same but unlike Nadal, Djokovic has a winning head-to-head against both GOAT candidates.

2. Only player who is undisputed GOAT of any surface (clay).
Yes.

3. ATG record outside his best surface alone.
Which is fine but far, far exceeded by Djokovic and Federer on these surfaces so they counterbalance his clay GOATness.

4. Youngest player to achieve the Non Calendar Year Grand Slam.
Another fine achievement, but dwarfed by Djokovic holding all 4 major titles simultaneously, Djokovic winning every major at least twice, and Djokovic winning every Masters title at least twice. And Djokovic has spent more than 2 1/2 years at #1 than Nadal has.

5. Very high peaks on all surfaces. Definitely much higher peak on clay than Fed and Djokovic, and very close peaks on HC (USO 2010) and grass (WB 2008) to the other two, though very reduced primes for easily understandable reasons.
One peak match here and one peak match there does not make a great argument. Sustained peaks are better and Nadal never had a season as good as Federer's 2005 and 2006 or Djokovic's 2011 and 2015 or even 2021.

6. Often hurdled by recurrent physical issues, which caused him to skip events or underperform severely, even failing to defend slams where he was incoming champion.
Injuries are not an excuse. We don't rate del Potro higher just because his career has been plagued with injuries, far worse than Nadal has, and he could easily have achieved what Murray or Wawrinka did had he been healthy.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Fair enough. Why didn't he skip clay? Because he wasn't that injured. Usually it's the clay season that wears him out, causing him to underperform afterwards. I don't think Nadal strategically skipped a lot of slams, I think he was seriously hampered, or trying to prevent further wear and tear.
Exactly. He wears himself out during clay season so the rest of the Slams have suffered as a result. This is a choice and a sacrifice. Just like this year, when he should have skipped some of those clay tournaments and chose not to. Also, see my edited post.
 
Top