Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Matt H., Jul 13, 2007.
so just what the heck are all the pros doing then?
More like Nadal and Federer are just too dominant on their respective surfaces.
at my place having margaritas.
Yes, the differenciation of playing styles has regressed, may it be bad or good. The counter argument is always, that Federer is the goat and Nadal the goat on clay. But what is with Djokovic. As a newcomer he not only places himself as a solid third in the race, but reaches the sf at RG and Wim in his first big year (and wins a Masters event, the 5th major, on hard court). As Moose Malloy showed, only a matured Agassi did that between 1994 and 2004. So, Djokovic must be the newcomer goat. And Davydenko the choker goat and so on. On the clay side: We miss some key players due to injuries: Kuerten isn't that old, and, if healthy, would be still a factor. Coria, a very talented clay courter, is out of the game, before reaching his potential. Federer beat him at Hamburg, i saw the 2004 final, but like Nadal in 2007, Coria came from a gruelling schedule, having won Rome the week before. He gave in after winning the first set. The Spaniards and South Americans seem to have a hole in their steady stream of producing clay champions. Del Potro isn't a clay courter. On the grass side: One player i miss, is Joachim Johannsson, who was up and coming in 2005. With his big serve, he looked like a future contender on grass and fast hard courts, reaching the sf at USO and beating Roddick there. Now all have good serves, but nobody at the top has a really big serve. I think Federer is leading the ace points race. In that context, the illness of Ancic is also hampering the depth of grass play. And i think Murray could be a factor on grass and hard, with his unorthodox game. He looked very strong at the AO, but probably his body gave in, due to the stricter training regimen.
there is no lack of clay courters.
there is lack of grass courters, but it all seems not matter any more, because grass courts are no longer the ones that used to require specialty. Now the wimbledon is like a faster clay court. And no Masters series on grass. So why do you still need grass courters? and why do the players want to become good at it when there are so few points offered? Just a bunch of irrelevant ATP series of events.
grass is not readily available.... clay is not very available... hard court is cheapeast and most convenient that is why... are you seroius?
you should have an affair with her.
There aren't very many hard courts in Europe and South America. Mostly red clay and some green clay. Hard courts are an Asia and North American thing.
The government does help out alot more with public parks and such in Europe however. Because most parks are privately owned in the U.S., they go the cheaper route of hardcourts.
i think hard is the most usual court!there are 2 grand slams with hard courts
i will spent more money for clay than hard
in my place , not only margaritas
More competitive grass court players are in reality hard courters. There are very few true grass courters anymore.
Yeah the majority of players today are hard court players. There are more clay courters than grass courters though.
Most players today play their best on hard courts. That is why alot of people say Nadal is dominating a weak clay court field, and Federer a weak grass court field. It isnt their fault, but most players today excel on hard courts first, making the field on specialized surfaces seem weaker.
Lets look at some of the players and list their favorite surface:
The thing is Nadal and Federer are so strong they beat alot of those players regularly on hard courts. So probably even if the clay and grass fields were stronger due to more players prefering those surfaces, they would still be dominant.
Separate names with a comma.