Nadal has more than 1 slam on each surface
- Thread starter 90's Clay
- Start date
xFedal
Legend
1 more Wimbledon and he will have 3 slams on every surface even Laver didn't do that. Along with the 3 Channel slams. 1 More Australian open for the double career slam.
xFedal
Legend
Well Nadal hasn't retired yet has he? He could add 1 more at Wimby and at US Open.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Good try clubbing USO and AO.
History/stats shows success in one does not guarantee success in the other, unless that person is Almighty Fed.
History/stats shows success in one does not guarantee success in the other, unless that person is Almighty Fed.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
If Nadal gets Federer's 2006 AO draw in 2015 he'll win it without dropping a set.
Unfortunately he's most likely going to have to deal with Novak and/or Murray again...
Thanks Roddick :lol:
NatF
Bionic Poster
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He is not guaranteed to beat Davydenko in AO 2006.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yeah. He had to deal with Murray so much in the last 3 years....
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well this year he didn't have to deal with them and still didn't win it
objectivity
Banned
that is because in the not so distant past, the AO and USO were played on different surfaces. but since they both started being held on hard courts, success in the AO has usually coincided with USO success. Agassi, Sampras, Chang, Safin, etc.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You do realise there are 2 HC slams right? So he is pretty much expected to have more than1 title on the surface.
Actually 3 HC slams is very little considering the fact that there are 2 HC slams per year
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Oh really? Then why is Djokovic a beast at AO but not so much at USO?
cronus
Professional
He is guaranteed,guaranteed to lose that is.
objectivity
Banned
oh ffs, PERSPECTIVE PLS. Djokovic has reached how many USO semis and finals ??? he just has lost to Nadal and Federer essentially... that doesn't mean he SUCKS at USO...
PERSPECTIVE PLS. jeeze.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Davydenko
Davy wouldn't beat him in a major.
Look at Murray's record against Federer outside of majors. Does that translate to success in majors? Not even close, Fed leads him there comfortably.
beating Nadal in bo5 is a different beast to bo3, just ask Djokovic...
As for Mike Danny who inexplicably quoted me three times for three different posts, no he hasn't had to deal with Murray that much at AO, he's faced him twice there in the past. However, it is likely that Murray will be a future obstacle for him as well as Novak.
You know as well as I do that if you take those 2 away, Nadal will most likely win it. Yes he didn't have to face them this year, but that loss was clearly because his back hampered his movement and Stan still nearly found a way to screw it up.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
I agree he'd win them all.
We've already seen how well Fed can dominate when he doesn't have to face Nadal in majors...
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Nadal better avoid Davydenko at his best. Luckily for him the dude is washed up.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yes but how do you know? All you have is just an assumption. What I have is 6-1 H2H on HC. Untill 2011 Djokovic also did beat Nadal in a major and later it actually happened.
Davy did play Fed very tough and could have won the match. And if he did to Fed, who is his toughest match-up, I think he would do better vs Nadal.
Combinded that with the fact that inexplicably Nadal rarely plays his best at AO and I think Davy would stand a fair chance
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Why didn't he lose to Nadal at AO? Or Murray? While he lost to both at USO.
The conditions are different at these 2 slams. It is pretty clear that Djokovic is easier to beat at USO compared to AO
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
In 2006 AO Fed was not playing anywhere near his best. He had mental lapses in a lot of his matches and nearly went down 2 sets to 0 against Baghdatis in the final.
This to me is enough to explain why Davy gave him a hard time. But what evidence do I have? Well I base it on the fact that Davy is a perennial slam choker whereas Nadal is quite the opposite.
I have my opinion just like you have yours. The 6-1 HC h2h outside slams is meaningless just as I pointed out with the Fed v Murray situation.
Also, Nadal beat Federer in Dubai06 shortly after Fed won the AO and Nadal was only playing his second tournament back from his foot injury.
tacou
G.O.A.T.
They are both effing amazing, the fact that the two fan bases hate each other instead of realizing how great the two have made one another is a joke.
Rafa needs to do more??
Fed needs another FO to be legit???
Absolutely hilarious. I am so happy to be a fan of both of these living legends.
Rafa needs to do more??
Fed needs another FO to be legit???
Absolutely hilarious. I am so happy to be a fan of both of these living legends.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
1 final each at AO and USO - Chang
1 win each at AO and USO - Safin
are not data points.
Djokovic winning AO effortlessly at the same time losing USO should show you. Sampras won 5 USO yet only 2 AO.
However Nadal inspite of being considered elite has not had success at AO. No denying that.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Federer's struggles against Murray on HC's are nowhere near as big as Nadal's against Davydenko. True, Federer dominates him in majors but he's also beaten him multiple times in best-of-3 - including 2009/2010/2012 WTF, 2009 Cincinnati, 2012 Dubai. The reason the h2h is dead even is because they played every single match (except 2) after 2008.
Nadal on the other hand was 2 games away from 0-7 in the h2h against Davydenko on HC's (ironically he won their first meeting indoors 6-4 in the 3rd set).
I'm not saying Davydenko would dominate Nadal in HC majors, only that Davydenko's chokes have occured almost solely against Federer who just flat out dominated him.
McEnroeisanartist
Hall of Fame
So does Mats Wilander.
objectivity
Banned
maybe Murray and Nadal played better when they met Novak at USO than at AO? how do you know its equal effort?
And so what if Djokovic is easier to beat at USO compared to AO? Does that mean he is poor at the USO?
PERSPECTIVE.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Some people don't realize how different hard courts are.
Imagine playing on glass vs. rubber. Yes, they are both "hard" court, but they are completely different surfaces.
On one the ball skids and on the other it grips the ball like clay. Suggesting that USO and AO are the same surface is desperation at best.
Imagine playing on glass vs. rubber. Yes, they are both "hard" court, but they are completely different surfaces.
On one the ball skids and on the other it grips the ball like clay. Suggesting that USO and AO are the same surface is desperation at best.
objectivity
Banned
first, they claimed that Nadal is winning that much because "surfaces are too similar... surface homogenization"...
then now, they claim that the hard courts are so vastly different, as to be "glass vs rubber".
ROCK SOLID LOGIC.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
It's called hyperbole.
Nadal's 9 RG titles vs 5 at the other 3 slams prove that there are big differences. However, that doesn't mean that surfaces weren't even more different years ago. It just means that Nadal would have 0 non clay titles prior to homogenization.
ForLoveOfTheGame
Semi-Pro
You need to understand, 90's Clay is obsessed with hating on Federer, he needs justification on an hourly basis (just look at all his posts). How do you think people on here get "Legend" status? By sitting in a basement making thousands of posts and ranting over their favorite players.
monfed
Banned
Your fellow Nadal fans claim that Rome, Madrid and RG are different clay courts. Infact, Ralph threatened to boycott the tournament when they played on blue clay. But they're all clay courts right? :lol:
objectivity
Banned
objectivity
Banned
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
No, I feel compelled to correct anyone who tries to build Nadal's primarily dirt ball resume into something greater than it is.
I like how they use words like "more than 1" or "multiple" instead of specifying 2-3. As if his "multiple" hard court and "multiple" grass slams means he dominated those surfaces. Because 2, 7, and 9 are all "multiple" :lol:
Last edited:
DjokovicForTheFO
Banned
Sampras could only win on two surfaces, in a weak era at that!
Your just speculating. Nadal next year he was crushed by Gonzalez.
Besides, Nadal finally made the AO final when they change the surface from rebound ace to plexicushion.
objectivity
Banned
remember, most players do not even win a single Masters 1000 title, let alone GS titles etc.
i don't think anybody has suggested that Nadal dominates grass or HC. BUT, to claim that he isn't proficient on either surface is absolutely ridiculous.
lets put things in perspective. Stefan Edberg has the same number of Wimbledon titles as Nadal. Are you going to tell me that Stefan Edberg was not proficient on grass?
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Edberg is best known these days for being Federer's coach.
Despite that, he has 2 Wimbledon's, 2 AO's, 2 USO's, and a WTF title.
In other words, Edberg's HC+grass+indoor resume is greater than Nadal's. Nadal only beats him on 1 surface and people are spreading propaganda that he's GOAT
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
the intelectual dishonesty of nadal fans arguments in this thread cannot be described by known adjectives.. we need a new word for that...
objectivity
Banned
Edberg is best known these days for being Federer's coach.
Despite that, he has 2 Wimbledon's, 2 AO's, 2 USO's, and a WTF title.
In other words, Edberg's HC+grass+indoor resume is greater than Nadal's. Nadal only beats him on 1 surface and people are spreading propaganda that he's GOAT
i will put it on the record here (again), lest you lump me with these "people".
Federer is still statistically speaking, the greatest player in history in terms of career achievements. in my opinion.
however, the same set of statistics also show that player vs player, Nadal is a better player than Federer.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
I'll go on record too. Nadal is the best clay courter ever.
Having said that, he needed bogus MTOs to get through the early rounds of Wimbledon and his USOs are overwhelmingly regarded as the 2 biggest joke draws of the open era.
The only legitimate non-clay big title he has won is 2009 AO (if you omit all of his other forms of gamesmanship). And that one's on Federer. It's probably the worst loss of his career.
Last edited:
objectivity
Banned
objectivity
Banned
i think the reason why many people (including myself) find you and others like monfed insufferable, is that you have to denigrate Nadal by saying things like "oh this win's illegitimate because he took a MTO" or "oh yeah the draw's too easy" etc etc. why do that? He won those tournaments, and lets just appreciate his victories. we can all have our favorite players but why denigrate others? for example, i am personally a big fan of Nadal, but I think Federer is simply a brilliant player -- if not the most brilliant in history. i think his 5 consecutive USOs for eg, are simply STAGGERING. i have no issue at all in acknowledging Federer's brilliance, easy draw or not. no issue. after all, Federer or any player can't control the draw.
we should just appreciate these wonderful athletes for who they are.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Any fan of Nadal's is a fan of cheating and gamesmanship. I couldn't care less what you think.
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
Fed does too... I count at least one of his french opens as a moral victory...
MasturB
Legend
no "surface homogenization", only "surface diversification" in this man's book!
I never said there wasn't some type of surface homogenization going, I mean some tournaments use different balls. I remember it was said Wimby opens their cans of balls a week or two before the tournament to make them a little heavy.
My post was just implying, that if you're going to embrace Rafa for these "each surface" things, might as well acknowledge Federer winning different prestigious tourneys on different surfaces. The blue clay is the one clay surface/tournament that Roger will always have that Rafa won't.
Similar threads
