Is this the résumé of an open era great on clay?

Bad_Knee

Professional
5 French Open finals

1 French Open title

5 consecutive french Open Semi Finals

9 Consecutive French Open Quater Finals

6 Clay Masters 1000 titles

Bagelled the great Rafael Nadal in a Masters final on clay en-route to victory in the final (A lot of people forget this one!)

What do you think?
 
D

Deleted member 733170

Guest
the video showed very very clearly the trajectories. there's bounce height, net clearance and RPM. what more do you want?



and for goodness sake, anyone who plays tennis knows that high RPM -- in the top spin fashion of course -- results in higher net clearance and higher bounce. period. and all i had said, was that Federer's forehand relies a tonne on high RPM i.e. high top spin. and that i do not think its possible he can do that with a wooden racket and gut.



i still don't get how you can get high net clearance AND a flat trajectory. can you explain? the only way i see that to happen, is if the ball is struck hard and down from a high position. is that what you are talking about? i don't think so btw. but i am happy to be educated.


I don't wish to pursue this much longer as it becoming tedious for all of us I fear. I originally commented that Federer had a flattish forehand and you and another poster pounced upon me and started talking about RPM. So I attempted to explain that RPM is a function of speed and spin/shape. To take an extreme example a ball travelling at the speed of light struck with only a tiny amount of top spin would have a higher RPM than a regular pro tennis shot, agreed?

Therefore Federer, over the balance of his long career, not only hit high RPM due to spin, but also due to the fact that ball had a higher average speed over the net than most of his competition. Therefore he had a smaller window of error and so had to hid the ball with a finer margin over the net and the result of that is a considerably flatter trajectory than say a looping moon ball etc.

I hope you will agree that this is not an unreasonable assumption to make and explains why his forehand, especially in his prime, was such a feared shot by his competitors.
 
D

Deleted member 733170

Guest
Sorry the other thread appears to have disappeared!
 
Federer is the 12th best clay courter in the Open Era behind Nadal, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten, Borg, Courier, Muster, Bruguera, Vilas, Laver, Rosewall. Will be 13th when Djokovic wins RG. So yes I agree, an Open Era great on clay, top 15 in the Open Era probably.
 

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
5 French Open finals

1 French Open title

5 consecutive french Open Semi Finals

9 Consecutive French Open Quater Finals

6 Clay Masters 1000 titles

Bagelled the great Rafael Nadal in a Masters final on clay en-route to victory in the final (A lot of people forget this one!)

What do you think?


Yes, absolutely.

5 FO finals, 1 title, including no wins over Nadal = one of the greatest clay courters ever.

Conversely, 5 Wimbledon finals, 2 titles, including 2008 final victory over Fed = a grass chump of the highest order.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
5 French Open finals

1 French Open title

5 consecutive french Open Semi Finals

9 Consecutive French Open Quater Finals

6 Clay Masters 1000 titles

Bagelled the great Rafael Nadal in a Masters final on clay en-route to victory in the final (A lot of people forget this one!)

What do you think?

Top 10 greatest clay courter of all time.
 

President

Legend
I don't wish to pursue this much longer as it becoming tedious for all of us I fear. I originally commented that Federer had a flattish forehand and you and another poster pounced upon me and started talking about RPM. So I attempted to explain that RPM is a function of speed and spin/shape. To take an extreme example a ball travelling at the speed of light struck with only a tiny amount of top spin would have a higher RPM than a regular pro tennis shot, agreed?

Therefore Federer, over the balance of his long career, not only hit high RPM due to spin, but also due to the fact that ball had a higher average speed over the net than most of his competition. Therefore he had a smaller window of error and so had to hid the ball with a finer margin over the net and the result of that is a considerably flatter trajectory than say a looping moon ball etc.

I hope you will agree that this is not an unreasonable assumption to make and explains why his forehand, especially in his prime, was such a feared shot by his competitors.

What? I am confused by your post. RPM has nothing to do with the speed of the ball, only with how many times it rotates per minute. Can you elaborate further?
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
5 French Open finals

1 French Open title

5 consecutive french Open Semi Finals

9 Consecutive French Open Quater Finals

6 Clay Masters 1000 titles

Bagelled the great Rafael Nadal in a Masters final on clay en-route to victory in the final (A lot of people forget this one!)

What do you think?

'Great' is a big word in this context. Not quite.
 

President

Legend
Yeah, not even top 10 in the Open Era but top 10 all time. I guess in the same world where a tier 1.5 exists, but nowhere else.

You really don't think he is top 10 in the Open Era, especially when we consider how unfortunate he was to have Nadal stop him so many times?
 

Flint

Hall of Fame
Yes thats pretty dam impressive.
Clearly Nadal is like the greatest clay courter ever but 6 clay masters and a French Open championship (+ more FO finals) is pretty impressive.


I wish Murray had 6 clay masters and a French Open!
 

Kerber_Lover

New User
5 French Open finals

1 French Open title

5 consecutive french Open Semi Finals

9 Consecutive French Open Quater Finals

6 Clay Masters 1000 titles

Bagelled the great Rafael Nadal in a Masters final on clay en-route to victory in the final (A lot of people forget this one!)

What do you think?

The bold part says it all about how good Fed is on clay. Making it to the final rounds doesn't count, that's just a cakewalk for a player of Fed's caliber.
 
You really don't think he is top 10 in the Open Era, especially when we consider how unfortunate he was to have Nadal stop him so many times?

The overall clay field is super weak today, which negates the Nadal excuse, if not more. Federer fans themselves know this, saying Nadal might not even be the clay GOAT despite 9 RG titles due to how weak the clay field is. Well Federer faces that same field.

So I only look at achievements. Muster and Vilas with over 40 clay titles, Courier and Bruguera with not only 2 but defense of RG titles, are obviously ahead. Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten, Laver, Rosewall (even 70s performances only), go without saying.

Djokovic is ahead if he wins Roland Garros since he has won all the clay Masters which gives him a much more balanced and impressive overall clay resume, will end up with more clay Masters than Federer, and will end up close (probably 1 ahead to 1 behind) in French Open finals but lost to Nadal in the semis 3 times as well.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
5 French Open finals

1 French Open title

5 consecutive french Open Semi Finals

9 Consecutive French Open Quater Finals

6 Clay Masters 1000 titles

Bagelled the great Rafael Nadal in a Masters final on clay en-route to victory in the final (A lot of people forget this one!)

What do you think?
No

....................
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
The overall clay field is super weak today, which negates the Nadal excuse, if not more. Federer fans themselves know this, saying Nadal might not even be the clay GOAT despite 9 RG titles due to how weak the clay field is. Well Federer faces that same field.

So I only look at achievements. Muster and Vilas with over 40 clay titles, Courier and Bruguera with not only 2 but defense of RG titles, are obviously ahead. Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten, Laver, Rosewall (even 70s performances only), go without saying.

Djokovic is ahead if he wins Roland Garros since he has won all the clay Masters which gives him a much more balanced and impressive overall clay resume, will end up with more clay Masters than Federer, and will end up close (probably 1 ahead to 1 behind) in French Open finals but lost to Nadal in the semis 3 times as well.

Rosewall's 70's clay achievements don't stack up to Federer's...Laver has less achievements as well with far fewer FO finals and just the one win.
 

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
Fed is as great on Clay as

Novak and Rafa are on grass

Nadal is greater on grass than NOvak and for sure greater in the green surface than federer is on clay.

Nadal 5 wimbledon finals,2 titles, 1 victory over peak fed in grass.

Djokovic 3 wimbledon finals, 2 titles, 1 victory over old fed in grass.

Federer 5 Rg finals, 1 title, no victory over rafa.

Nadal is better in Natural surfaces with 11 slams, 9-2, and that includes 14 gs finals, 9-5, compared to fed with 8 GS in natural surfaces 1-7, and that includes 14 gs finals 5-9.

Nadal is better in Slam winning conversion best slam winning 9/9, compared federer 7/9, and also better in his worst 2/5, compared to Fed 1/5.

Federer is better in HC slams though, but that belongs to a whole different discussion.
 
Last edited:
Rosewall's 70's clay achievements don't stack up to Federer's...Laver has less achievements as well with far fewer FO finals and just the one win.

I would have to review Rosewalls more closely but Laver was the worlds best clay courter more than one year, unlike Federer who never really was (not even in 2009 IMO). There were years in the early 70s the French Open wasn't the biggest event. Laver would have destroyed Kodes in the French open final had he played the French, 1 of the years Kode won.
 

Revenant

Banned
I would have to review Rosewalls more closely but Laver was the worlds best clay courter more than one year, unlike Federer who never really was (not even in 2009 IMO). There were years in the early 70s the French Open wasn't the biggest event. Laver would have destroyed Kodes in the French open final had he played the French, 1 of the years Kode won.

How was Federer not the best Claycourter in 2009? He won the French Open and the Madrid Masters.
 
How was Federer not the best Claycourter in 2009? He won the French Open and the Madrid Masters.

Lets face it, if you asked anyone who you would rather play on clay the next day, or who was the most likely to win any upcoming event on clay (either the small ones remaining 2009 or in 2010) everyone would say Federer to the former, and Nadal to the latter. No exceptions.

As for the person who said Federer is as great on clay as Djokovic and Nadal on grass, I would say even with Djokovic on grass (relatively), but clearly inferior to Nadal on grass.
 
Last edited:
I don't wish to pursue this much longer as it becoming tedious for all of us I fear. I originally commented that Federer had a flattish forehand and you and another poster pounced upon me and started talking about RPM. So I attempted to explain that RPM is a function of speed and spin/shape. To take an extreme example a ball travelling at the speed of light struck with only a tiny amount of top spin would have a higher RPM than a regular pro tennis shot, agreed?

Therefore Federer, over the balance of his long career, not only hit high RPM due to spin, but also due to the fact that ball had a higher average speed over the net than most of his competition. Therefore he had a smaller window of error and so had to hid the ball with a finer margin over the net and the result of that is a considerably flatter trajectory than say a looping moon ball etc.

I hope you will agree that this is not an unreasonable assumption to make and explains why his forehand, especially in his prime, was such a feared shot by his competitors.

NO. RPM = rotations per minute. it is not a function of the ball's velocity. so in your example, a ball travelling at the speed of light with very low spin, will still have a low RPM. period.
 
Well, I have not counted what Federers clay record would be without Nadal. But it would certainly put Federer very high. So it hinges on how good Nadal really is on clay, to evaluate it. But Nadal not being there is hypothetical, so oh well...
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
As for the person who said Federer is as great on clay as Djokovic and Nadal on grass, I would say even with Djokovic on grass (relatively), but clearly inferior to Nadal on grass.

@Mentalgiant

I would say Fed on clay is slightly better than Novak on grass (so far) and that
Rafa on grass = Fed on clay at the very least.

Why? Rafa on clay > Federer on grass.
Rafa has beaten Fed 12? times on clay, including in 5 FO's, most of which he would have been favored to win without Rafa. Nevertheless, he still has 6 Masters and 1 FO.
So just because Rafa beat Fed at Wimbledon, doesn't mean Rafa's grass court game is better than Fed's clay game. It simply means that Rafa is even more dominant on clay than Fed on grass and combined with Rafa having the match-up advantage, the end-result is Rafa going 12-2 or 13-2 on clay vs. Fed, whereas Fed is only 2-1 on Rafa on grass.
 
Last edited:

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
An open era great? I would say no, because I think that'd be a relatively small list, but it is the work of a great clay player.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
NO. RPM = rotations per minute. it is not a function of the ball's velocity. so in your example, a ball travelling at the speed of light with very low spin, will still have a low RPM. period.

A completely odd question - I know all about the different players RPM stats and all, but my mind has a hard time grasping how a tennis ball can rotate around itself 80 times a second (RPM = 4800/60 = 80). That's just an awful lot and when I see slow motion pictures, it doesn't seem to fit.
But is it truly 80 times around itself in 1 second? Or have I understood RPM completely wrong?
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
The overall clay field is super weak today, which negates the Nadal excuse, if not more. Federer fans themselves know this, saying Nadal might not even be the clay GOAT despite 9 RG titles due to how weak the clay field is. Well Federer faces that same field.
That's absurd. Fed fans "know this"? When Nadal beat him there, four times i the final? Not to mention Djokovic getting beaten there twice.

That either means that BOTH Federer and Djokovic are weak clay players, in a weak clay era (which I think is nonsense), of Nadal is THAT GOOD. On clay.

BOTH Fed fans AND Nadal fans want it both ways.

I see this as a strong era. It was a time when you have had AT LEAST three incredible players each denying the others slams and major titles. I am not (yet) ready to put Murray in the same category.

I give full credit to Nadal. He is a force of nature, when healthy.

And to Fed, because his records SHOULD speak for themselves.

And to Djokovic, because if the era were not so incredibly strong, who knows how many majors he would have.

I just wish fanatics would stop distorting EVERY fact, and it happens in about half the threads in this whole forum.
 
@Mentalgiant

I would say Fed on clay is slightly better than Novak on grass (so far) and that
Rafa on grass = Fed on clay at the very least.

Why? Rafa on clay > Federer on grass.
Rafa has beaten Fed 12? times on clay, including in 5 FO's, most of which he would have been favored to win without Rafa. Nevertheless, he still has 6 Masters and 1 FO.
So just because Rafa beat Fed at Wimbledon, doesn't mean Rafa's grass court game is better than Fed's clay game. It simply means that Rafa is even more dominant on clay than Fed on grass and combined with Rafa having the match-up advantage, the end-result is Rafa going 12-2 or 13-2 on clay vs. Fed, whereas Fed is only 2-1 on Rafa on grass.

I agree Rafa on clay > Federer on grass. In fact that is blatantly obvious (and much moreso than Federer on clay vs Rafa on grass). However I would also say Rafa on grass > Federer on clay. In addition to Rafa's Wimbledon performance in 2006-2011 indicating this (and nothing else to go by as there is no real grass season, but I imagine if there were 3 Masters on grass per year 2006-2011 Nadal would win more than just 1 out of the 3 in that 6 year period, and roughly the same as Federer's 6 on clay as a total), the level of play Nadal played at Wimbledon in 2007 and 2008 is simply higher than any clay level I have ever seen Fedeerer produce.

The combination of Nadal being better on grass than Federer on clay, and Federer on grass way inferior to Nadal on clay, is what made Nadal so much more competitive with Federer at Wimbledon in 2007-2008 when both were near their best, then Federer ever could be vs Nadal at RG.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Well they say it repeatedly so that indicates them feeling certain of this (except when ranking Federer on clay is involved, and then they change their tune dramatically, lol).
There are people who "know" that evolution is a lie.

And people who "know" the world was created a few thousand years ago.

And so on. ;)

For the record, I consider myself a "Fed fan".

And I'm a "Nadal fan". So when they meet, I'm totally split.

I'm not a Djokovic fan. But I think he deserves every bit of success he has had, and in ways I think he has had the hardest time of the "Big Three".

And I don't there has ever been a more fierce three-way competition than over the past few years.

You won't ever catch me trying to make a player seem better by bashing another. I think that's extremely immature.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I agree Rafa on clay > Federer on grass. In fact that is blatantly obvious (and much moreso than Federer on clay vs Rafa on grass). However I would also say Rafa on grass > Federer on clay. In addition to Rafa's Wimbledon performance in 2006-2011 indicating this (and nothing else to go by as there is no real grass season, but I imagine if there were 3 Masters on grass per year 2006-2011 Nadal would win more than just 1 out of the 3 in that 6 year period, and roughly the same as Federer's 6 on clay as a total), the level of play Nadal played at Wimbledon in 2007 and 2008 is simply higher than any clay level I have ever seen Fedeerer produce.

The combination of Nadal being better on grass than Federer on clay and Federer on grass way inferior to Nadal on clay, a, is what made Nadal so much more competitive with Federer at Wimbledon in 2007-2008 when both were near their best, then Federer ever could be vs Nadal at RG.

Come on, let's not get carried away now. :-|
 

Crisp

Professional
It is very hard to say we're Fed sits on his clay accomplishments. For along time he was easily the second best clay court player going around. The problem was it coincided with Rafa being the best clay courter going around and the gap was too great for Fed to win at RG. Take Rafa out of the equation and Feds clay court performance is up there with his performance at other slams more than likely. The same could be said for Rafa at the other slams. We should be great full that we have got to witness such great players. I think that the GS titles will be distributed through more and more players though over the next 2 years. C if not 2015 then definitely 2016. Hope Fed can sneak another tho it seems unlikely.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
I agree Rafa on clay > Federer on grass. In fact that is blatantly obvious (and much moreso than Federer on clay vs Rafa on grass). However I would also say Rafa on grass > Federer on clay. In addition to Rafa's Wimbledon performance in 2006-2011 indicating this (and nothing else to go by as there is no real grass season, but I imagine if there were 3 Masters on grass per year 2006-2011 Nadal would win more than just 1 out of the 3 in that 6 year period, and roughly the same as Federer's 6 on clay as a total), the level of play Nadal played at Wimbledon in 2007 and 2008 is simply higher than any clay level I have ever seen Fedeerer produce.

The combination of Nadal being better on grass than Federer on clay, and Federer on grass way inferior to Nadal on clay, is what made Nadal so much more competitive with Federer at Wimbledon in 2007-2008 when both were near their best, then Federer ever could be vs Nadal at RG.

Rome 2006, RG semi 2011, Hamburg 2007, first 3 sets of RG 2011, couple of sets here in there in 2005-2007 RG. I think Fed can produce similar clay heights to Rafa's grass heights.
But Rafa's clay superiority (over Fed's grass) + his match-up advantage prevents the rivalry on clay to be as competitive as it was on grass back in the day.
As for the Masters reference, he probably would have won a fair bit - but that's again to do with Rafa >>> Roger on clay and Roger > Rafa on grass (not overall, but with the match-up and all).
 

90's Clay

Banned
5 French Open finals

1 French Open title

5 consecutive french Open Semi Finals

9 Consecutive French Open Quater Finals

6 Clay Masters 1000 titles

Bagelled the great Rafael Nadal in a Masters final on clay en-route to victory in the final (A lot of people forget this one!)

What do you think?



Not when you consider the depth of the clay field for the past 10 years:shock:

There is what? Maybe 3-4 decent to good dirt ballers, and 1 great dirt baller today?

Thats pathetic when you put it up against the fields of the 80s and 90s
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
Not when you consider the depth of the clay field for the past 10 years:shock:

There is what? Maybe 3-4 decent to good dirt ballers, and 1 great dirt baller today?

Thats pathetic when you put it up against the fields of the 80s and 90s

Anyone who thinks Novak and Fed wouldn't have had their fair share of clay titles in the 90's is either extremely bias towards 90's players and their achievements or just straight up doesn't know squat about tennis. Federer is a very good clay courter, i'm sorry i don't care what era you played in, if you wanna call the last 10 years 'weak' it still doenst matter. If you make 6 finals and win a title their only losing to the GOAT clay courter your resume is pretty much better than most RG winners from 1990 onwards bar rafa. No one, bruegera, courier, muster, chang, aggasi etc etc - they aren't close to rafa;s domination on the surface. Fed would have had a very very good chance at beating all of them on his day because none of them played like rafa. He isn't like pete who hit very flat and couldn't really grind, he can grind very well.

Anyone who thinks any of the champions from the 90's would have beaten rafa is delusional. He is head and shoulders above everyone on clay except for borg, and he is better than borg was. Perhaps not a better mover on clay, but possess a much more brutal game.
 
Last edited:
Rome 2006, RG semi 2011, Hamburg 2007, first 3 sets of RG 2011, couple of sets here in there in 2005-2007 RG. I think Fed can produce similar clay heights to Rafa's grass heights.
But Rafa's clay superiority (over Fed's grass) + his match-up advantage prevents the rivalry on clay to be as competitive as it was on grass back in the day.
As for the Masters reference, he probably would have won a fair bit - but that's again to do with Rafa >>> Roger on clay and Roger > Rafa on grass (not overall, but with the match-up and all).

In the end Nadal won Wimbledon twice and reached the Wimbledon final 5 times. Federer won the French Open once, and reached the French Open final 5 times. It would take atleast 3 extra finals to make up for 1 less title. Furthermore the 2007 and 2008 Wimbledon finals are regarded as two of the best matches in history, and have had books written about them. The Nadal-Federer RG finals on the other hand....:lol: So clearly Nadal on grass > Federer on clay.

BTW Nadal wasn't crowned the clay GOAT until he won his 8th RG title, despite that at 6 he had already matched/exceeded the previous clay GOAT Borg in clay achievements. Due to the weak clay field of the Nadal/Federer era. So based on that maybe my ranking Federer 10-13 in the Open Era on clay is generous. I ranked him there based on achievements alone, but based on Nadal not being given the clay GOAT title until he had achieved a good 30% more than Borg on clay due to a weak clay field, it would seem to suggest Federer should be dropped lower than his achievements due to the weak field on clay the same way Nadal was.
 

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
In the end Nadal won Wimbledon twice and reached the Wimbledon final 5 times. Federer won the French Open once, and reached the French Open final 5 times. It would take atleast 3 extra finals to make up for 1 less title. Furthermore the 2007 and 2008 Wimbledon finals are regarded as two of the best matches in history, and have had books written about them. The Nadal-Federer RG finals on the other hand....:lol: So clearly Nadal on grass > Federer on clay.

BTW Nadal wasn't crowned the clay GOAT until he won his 8th RG title, despite that at 6 he had already matched/exceeded the previous clay GOAT Borg in clay achievements. Due to the weak clay field of the Nadal/Federer era. So based on that maybe my ranking Federer 10-13 in the Open Era on clay is generous. I ranked him there based on achievements alone, but based on Nadal not being given the clay GOAT title until he had achieved a good 30% more than Borg on clay due to a weak clay field, it would seem to suggest Federer should be dropped lower than his achievements due to the weak field on clay the same way Nadal was.

I disagree , standing at 7 Nadal was already claimed the RG goat, even at only 6 RG more people than not agreed he was already a notch above Borg in terms of greatness over that surface, but many people wont jump the band-wagon until the numbers support their claims.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
In the end Nadal won Wimbledon twice and reached the Wimbledon final 5 times.

If that's just the conclusion, there's no reason to argue. I thought we were taking the respective difficulty of overcoming a player you have a favorable match-up with into account as well as Rafa being the single most dominant surface specialist in the Open Era.
But perhaps that was just me.
Fed also has 9 straight quarters at the FO and some semis. Rafa has nothing outside of those 5 years.
 
would've been great if he actually WON instead of just being in the final.
but to answer the question, yes certainly a great record and clearly shows that he is second best on clay.
just too bad that the one that's the best on clay is miles and miles ahead of him (and everyone else for that matter)
 

TheMusicLover

G.O.A.T.
That's absurd. Fed fans "know this"? When Nadal beat him there, four times i the final? Not to mention Djokovic getting beaten there twice.

That either means that BOTH Federer and Djokovic are weak clay players, in a weak clay era (which I think is nonsense), of Nadal is THAT GOOD. On clay.

BOTH Fed fans AND Nadal fans want it both ways.

I see this as a strong era. It was a time when you have had AT LEAST three incredible players each denying the others slams and major titles. I am not (yet) ready to put Murray in the same category.

I give full credit to Nadal. He is a force of nature, when healthy.

And to Fed, because his records SHOULD speak for themselves.

And to Djokovic, because if the era were not so incredibly strong, who knows how many majors he would have.

I just wish fanatics would stop distorting EVERY fact, and it happens in about half the threads in this whole forum.

You make far too much sense for this forum. Nevertheless I hope you will stay around! :)
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Not when you consider the depth of the clay field for the past 10 years:shock:

There is what? Maybe 3-4 decent to good dirt ballers, and 1 great dirt baller today?

Thats pathetic when you put it up against the fields of the 80s and 90s

LMAO, is there anything you give Federer any credit for?!!
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
LMAO, is there anything you give Federer any credit for?!!
Of course there isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering who the new guy saintlaurent whom I've been arguing with all day is.
Completely new guy, who just happens to be extremely active? Or one of the oldies coming back? If the latter, I've got a feeling for FOD for some reason.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Of course there isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering who the new guy saintlaurent whom I've been arguing with all day is.
Completely new guy, who just happens to be extremely active? Or one of the oldies coming back? If the latter, I've got a feeling for FOD for some reason.

It's NadalAgassi mate, also known as poofytail. Exact same style of writing with a passion for women's tennis in particular.
 
Top