Nadal is the second best grass court player in the world.

[Rataplan]

Not at all, Nadal's record on Hard courts is no better than a lot of other players like Roddick, Djokovic, Blake, and others I can't remember them all now. He's an average Hard courter at best, and a lucky grass courter at best.

lol
You're missing the point. Are you doing that on purpose or are you really such a Federer fanboy?

You wrote: "that a player who is good on one surface only"
Whether he has a better or worse record on hard courts than Roddick, Djokovic and Blake is beside the point. That could be the topic of another conversation I'm not willing to go into with you.

However, it's ridiculous to state that he's good on one surface only. Please, take a break and think about this before you reply.

 

[ninman]

lol
You're missing the point. Are you doing that on purpose or are you really such a Federer fanboy?

You wrote: "that a player who is good on one surface only"
Whether he has a better or worse record on hard courts than Roddick, Djokovic and Blake is beside the point. That could be the topic of another conversation I'm not willing to go into with you.

However, it's ridiculous to state that he's good on one surface only. Please, take a break and think about this before you reply.

Ok let's look at some stats, Nadal has 22 ATP titles to his name 16 are on clay the rest are on hard courts. He has yet to get past the quarters of either AO or the USO. I personally think the grass season is too short to really count, but he hasn't won a single title on grass yet.

So if 16/22 titles on clay doesn't suggest a one surface player I don't know what does.

 

[Rodditha]

Nadal knows how to beat players only on clay, he is a one surface player. On another surface than clay he is vulnurable.

 

[Rataplan]

So if 16/22 titles on clay doesn't suggest a one surface player I don't know what does.

That means that he's by far the best on clay but you still can't say that he's only good on clay.
Not if you want to be taken seriously anyway.

Sorry but you will have to do better than that.

 

[Rodditha]

That means that he's by far the best on clay but you still can't say that he's only good on clay.

Sorry but you will have to do better than that.

You are a Nadal groupie, Nadal is being demolished on other surface than clay, you don't even need stats to confirm that, we see it all the time. He is a one surface player, why you don't want to admit it ? It's a fact.

 

[ninman]

That means that he's by far the best on clay but you still can't say that he's only good on clay.
Not if you want to be taken seriously anyway.

Sorry but you will have to do better than that.

It's all about titles, and currently he has only I think 2 MS titles on Hard courts, compared to Federer's 9, and no GS titles on Hard courts compared to Federer's 6. It doesn't matter if he's consistently in semi's or quarters, the fact is he doesn't WIN the tournaments.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

It's all about titles, and currently he has only I think 2 MS titles on Hard courts, compared to Federer's 9, and no GS titles on Hard courts compared to Federer's 6. It doesn't matter if he's consistently in semi's or quarters, the fact is he doesn't WIN the tournaments.

so what does that have to do with Nadal being the second best grass court player on the tour?

 

[ninman]

so what does that have to do with Nadal being the second best grass court player on the tour?

Except he's not, because he has yet to win a title on grass. But seriously who cares who's second best anyway? It's like the press don't care that Federer is "second best" on clay, they only care who is best and that is Nadal. No one can deny Federer is the best on grass, he hasn't lost on grass for 5 years, everyone else is 2nd best, and on their day others may have been in the final against the feds not Nadal. At the end of the day there is no difference between 2, 3, 4 or 5.

Federer said himself when someone asked if Djokovic should be 3 in the world and he said "what's the difference between 2, 3, 4 and 5?" The only thing that really counts is who No.1.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

It's like the press don't care that Federer is "second best" on clay, they only care who is best and that is Nadal. No one can deny Federer is the best on grass, he hasn't lost on grass for 5 years, everyone else is 2nd best, and on their day others may have been in the final against the feds not Nadal. At the end of the day there is no difference between 2, 3, 4 or 5.

Federer said himself when someone asked if Djokovic should be 3 in the world and he said "what's the difference between 2, 3, 4 and 5?" The only thing that really counts is who No.1.

actually the press does care and thats exactly where I got the idea for this post. All of the press always goes around saying that Fed is the second best clay courter on the tour.

So why doesn't Nadal get his due by being called the second best grass courter on the tour?

And as far as the #1 or #2 spot I guess then you are saying that no one should care about Boris Becker either. Did you know that in his entire hall of fame career he has never been the #1 player at years end???

 

[ninman]

actually does care and thats exactly where I got the idea for this post. All of the press always goes around saying that Fed is the second best clay courter on the tour.

So why doesn't Nadal get his due by being called the second best grass courter on the tour?

And as far as the #1 or #2 spot I guess then you are saying that no one should care about Boris Becker either. Did you know that in his entire hall of fame career he has never been the #1 player at years end???

Because he's NOT the second best grass courter on tour. If a few of the players from Fed's half of the draw had been in Nadals then I doubt that he'd have been in the final.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Because he's NOT the second best grass courter on tour. If a few of the players from Fed's half of the draw had been in Nadals then I doubt that he'd have been in the final.

really who? How many more players does Nadal have to beat?

 

[ninman]

really who? How many more players does Nadal have to beat?

How about Mahut and Blake?

 

[ninman]

Roddick and Gasquet?

 

[scineram]

Blake is a non-factor outside of hard courts.

 

[ninman]

Blake is a non-factor outside of hard courts.

I think the next big player will Djokovic personally. I think he'll be No.1 before Nadal.

 

[scineram]

I agree on Choker.

 

[J-man]

Blake is a non-factor outside of hard courts.

Blake is a non-factor outside the USopen period. It's to bad because he is a good player (which is almost an oxymoron).

As of right now Nadal has shown for the past 2 years that he is the second best grass court player in the world. He's gotten to the final and even pushed almighty Federer to 5 and fended off Soderling a very tough player on any surface. It will be intersting to see how his Wimbledon career pans out now that he has had all this sucess there.

 

[ninman]

Blake is a non-factor outside the USopen period. It's to bad because he is a good player (which is almost an oxymoron).

As of right now Nadal has shown for the past 2 years that he is the second best grass court player in the world. He's gotten to the final and even pushed almighty Federer to 5 and fended off Soderling a very tough player on any surface. It will be intersting to see how his Wimbledon career pans out now that he has had all this sucess there.

In my opinion you don't have success until you win a tournament. He's done well and I expect he'll win it, but it's not really success because the Runner-Up is just the best loser. Before you say it that goes for Feds at the FO too.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

In my opinion you don't have success until you win a tournament. He's done well and I expect he'll win it, but it's not really success because the Runner-Up is just the best loser. Before you say it that goes for Feds at the FO too.

Can you give credit to Nadal for anything? So according to you he just got lucky at Wimbledon and he cannot play on any surface other than clay.

Wow you really do hate Nadal.

 

[Federer_pilon]

It's all about titles, and currently he has only I think 2 MS titles on Hard courts, compared to Federer's 9, and no GS titles on Hard courts compared to Federer's 6. It doesn't matter if he's consistently in semi's or quarters, the fact is he doesn't WIN the tournaments.

He has 3. You say he has won titles on hard before and then you say "he doesn't WIN the tournaments". lol are u contradicting yourself? -.-

 

[Rodditha]

Can you give credit to Nadal for anything? So according to you he just got lucky at Wimbledon and he cannot play on any surface other than clay.

Wow you really do hate Nadal.[/quote/]
Telling the truth dosen't mean we hate him.

 

[stav_babolat]

he almost lost to soderling for god sake!!

 

[War Safin!]

1 - Queens is the only proper, true grass-court tournament left.
2 - Nadal got exposed in that.
3 - He's not a grass-court player.

End of.

 

[htrain]

Nadal is a disgrace to grass court tennis...he plays from 10 feet behind the baseline with his western forehand, its a joke to see someone be able to play like that and get to the finals.

 

[Rodditha]

That's gonna be his last appearance in Wimbledon finals.

 

[dukemunson]

actually the press does care and thats exactly where I got the idea for this post. All of the press always goes around saying that Fed is the second best clay courter on the tour.

So why doesn't Nadal get his due by being called the second best grass courter on the tour?

And as far as the #1 or #2 spot I guess then you are saying that no one should care about Boris Becker either. Did you know that in his entire hall of fame career he has never been the #1 player at years end???

Whats your deal with Becker...he was a great player but never the best in any given year. You don't have to hit #1 to make the hall of fame...being the second, third and fourth best player for a long time is pretty damn impressive (obviously).

 

[rett]

yes i do think nadal is second best on gass this year. the way some you talk he should be 80 in world and barely making a living playing tennis. Now weather you like nadal as a player or not he can play some very good tennis and not just on clay. and why do people say he won just on clay like that surface doesnt count as much as faster surfaces. Is the faster surface consider better than clay.

 

[Rataplan]

..he plays from 10 feet behind the baseline

Just a bit of advice: it helps to actually watch a match when you want to analyse a player.


You're either trolling or you didn't see Nadal play in Wimbledon because that's not true, my friend.

 

[tricky]

FWIW, I think Nadal is a better volleyer than almost all the Americans in the top 50. And he certainly approached the net more than Federer did the past 2 Wimbledon tourneys.

The point being, Nadal doesn't impose his style of play on grass as he does on clay. It's baseline-based sure, but so is the majority of the field. He plays much more aggressive angles; he cuts off the net; this kind of grass makes his BH, especially his running BH, a fearsome crosscourt weapon. He mostly sought to go forward instead of parking out way behind the baseline.

A lot of people feel that Nadal's style mocks the grass court tradition. But I would argue that, given the foundation of his style, he has done a better job observing the conventional wisdom of winning at Wimbledon than most of his peers.

 

[Ripster]

1 - Queens is the only proper, true grass-court tournament left.

ummm....what?

2 - Nadal got exposed in that.

None of Nadal's weaknesses (which are few) were exposed in the final, he played beautifully.

3 - He's not a grass-court player.

His game in theory doesn't suit grass, but he's clearly displayed that he can make adjustments to succeed on the grass.

 

[caulcano]

Nadal is a disgrace to grass court tennis...he plays from 10 feet behind the baseline with his western forehand, its a joke to see someone be able to play like that and get to the finals.

Don't blame the player, blame the organisers.

 

[ninman]

Exactly, one of these days they'll be talking about Grass being slower than Clay! I mean Grass slower than Hard courts is already a joke.

 

[federerfanatic]

And he certainly approached the net more than Federer did the past 2 Wimbledon tourneys.

Nonsense. Federer came in twice as much as Nadal in this years Wimbledon final, and much more often in last years too. I dont know what stat you are looking at, but if it is all the net approaches for the Championships, the only possible way Nadal would be in front is because he played so much more then Federer who had pretty easy matches all along, unlike 5 setters, and straight setters with tiebreaks like Nadal.

 

[War Safin!]

Originally Posted by War, Safin!
1 - Queens is the only proper, true grass-court tournament left.
ummm....what?

Originally Posted by War, Safin!
2 - Nadal got exposed in that.
None of Nadal's weaknesses (which are few) were exposed in the final, he played beautifully.

Originally Posted by War, Safin!
3 - He's not a grass-court player.
His game in theory doesn't suit grass, but he's clearly displayed that he can make adjustments to succeed on the grass.

1 - Quuen's pretty much plays like Wimbledon did back in the 90s....no matter anyone says, it's quicker and bounces lower than Wimbledon 2007.
That makes it #1 for grasscourts on the ATP, in my opinion.

2 - I'm referring to Queens again. Nadal got straight-setted in the Qtrs.

3 - On slow, high-bouncing rye-grass, yes.
This doesn't make his transition from slow, high-bouncing clay very special at all.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

1 - Quuen's pretty much plays like Wimbledon did back in the 90s....no matter anyone says, it's quicker and bounces lower than Wimbledon 2007.
That makes it #1 for grasscourts on the ATP, in my opinion.

2 - I'm referring to Queens again. Nadal got straight-setted in the Qtrs.

3 - On slow, high-bouncing rye-grass, yes.
This doesn't make his transition from slow, high-bouncing clay very special at all.

Could it possibly also be that Nadal wasn't as prepared for Queens as he was for Wimbledon? Nadal was too busy winning the French Open to get the proper preparation for Queens.

 

[stormholloway]

That's gonna be his last appearance in Wimbledon finals.

You're going to eat those words.

I think it's ridiculous the lack of credit that is given to Nadal. Before Wimbledon, I said he would make the final. Others said he only made the finals because of a weak draw. He's played more Wimbledon finals than Federer had at that age.

He almost beat perhaps the greatest grass court player of all time and still nobody gives him credit.

Are people actually referencing Queen's Club in this argument? That's completely irrelevant. Federer was too tired to even attempt to play Halle. Nadal probably shouldn't have, but when it counted, at Wimbledon, Nadal stepped up. Nobody doubts that Federer is the second best on clay yet they can't admit that Nadal is second on grass. Considering there's hardly any time to practice on it, and that Nadal has very little experience on it compared to the likes of Roddick, Nadal managed to come within inches of dethroning the 4 time champion.

You people need to get over yourselves.

 

[anointedone]

You're going to eat those words.

I think it's ridiculous the lack of credit that is given to Nadal. Before Wimbledon, I said he would make the final. Others said he only made the finals because of a weak draw. He's played more Wimbledon finals than Federer had at that age.

He almost beat perhaps the greatest grass court player of all time and still nobody gives him credit.

Are people actually referencing Queen's Club in this argument? That's completely irrelevant. Federer was too tired to even attempt to play Halle. Nadal probably shouldn't have, but when it counted, at Wimbledon, Nadal stepped up. Nobody doubts that Federer is the second best on clay yet they can't admit that Nadal is second on grass. Considering there's hardly any time to practice on it, and that Nadal has very little experience on it compared to the likes of Roddick, Nadal managed to come within inches of dethroning the 4 time champion.

You people need to get over yourselves.

1. Federer is not the greatest grass court player of all time. 1 of Laver or Sampras definitely is at this point.

2. People who commented on his "weak draw" last year still had a point, since it was a weak draw last year that he had. That isnt his fault, but I see where some might be coming from. Many of those now give him credit this year since he did it a second time with a much stronger draw, so his performance this year should confirm his abilities on grass.

 

[War Safin!]

Could it possibly also be that Nadal wasn't as prepared for Queens as he was for Wimbledon? Nadal was too busy winning the French Open to get the proper preparation for Queens.

No it couldn't.



Your move.

 

[fresnel]

1) Nadal had nothing to lose, no one was expecting him to win the match and he could swing away.
2) Federer for most of the match didnt bring his A game, he was understandably tense because:
a. His undisputed no 1 ranking was on the line
b. going for the record 5th wimbledon
c. coming off a loss in Paris

You'll notice he only upped his level in the 5th set and then basically ran away with the match. In fact one columnist stated the only reason the match wasn't a great match was because it lacked suspense in the end.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

No it couldn't.



Your move.

Figures you would put such a emphasis on a warmup tournament. A tournament that would hurt Nadal if he got to the final as he has played tennis too much already going into Wimbledon.

 

[Zaragoza]

he almost lost to soderling for god sake!!

He almost beat Soderling in straight sets

 

[wyutani]

He almost beat Soderling in straight sets

almost...lozlll=

 

[Zaragoza]

1 - Queens is the only proper, true grass-court tournament left.
2 - Nadal got exposed in that.
3 - He's not a grass-court player.

End of.

1- Because you say so. Wimbledon is the only big tournament on grass. Queens is a warm up tournament where players that lose in the early rounds of the French usually have success.
2-Nadal played inmediately after winning the French (no rest and no time to practice on grass) unlike the rest of the field in Queens. Who did win the French Open and a grass tournament the week after that?
3-So Federer is not a grass court player because he didn´t win Queens? Is Roddick the best grass player? LOL.
4-I like how some people pick Queens over Wimbledon to analyse Nadal´s performance on grass. It´s ridiculous and funny at the same time.
Nadal is 2nd best on grass, by far. You can ask Roger too.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

2-Nadal played inmediately after winning the French (no rest and no time to practice on grass) unlike the rest of the field in Queens. Who did win the French Open and a grass tournament the week after that?

While he did not win the French and do it, Federer played the final match of the French Open (losing to Nadal of course) in 2006 and did win Halle. However that in itself was an incredibly difficult feat, he went to 3 sets in 4 of his matches, some people who would never normaly take a set from him on grass. Halle is also a bit weaker field then Queens. So yes it is extremely difficult, and not too fair to expect.

 

[welcome2petrkordaland]

unbelievable trolling in this thread.

 

[mrsrogerfederer]

unbelievable trolling in this thread.

true dat. xgdgsgsg

 

[Rodditha]

You're going to eat those words.

I think it's ridiculous the lack of credit that is given to Nadal. Before Wimbledon, I said he would make the final. Others said he only made the finals because of a weak draw. He's played more Wimbledon finals than Federer had at that age.

He almost beat perhaps the greatest grass court player of all time and still nobody gives him credit.

Are people actually referencing Queen's Club in this argument? That's completely irrelevant. Federer was too tired to even attempt to play Halle. Nadal probably shouldn't have, but when it counted, at Wimbledon, Nadal stepped up. Nobody doubts that Federer is the second best on clay yet they can't admit that Nadal is second on grass. Considering there's hardly any time to practice on it, and that Nadal has very little experience on it compared to the likes of Roddick, Nadal managed to come within inches of dethroning the 4 time champion.

You people need to get over yourselves.

Why not admit that Nadal was lucky this year also last year and that he isn't number 2 on grass. It's the facts. Why give him credit ? Can someone say why does Nadal deserves credits for poor results on grass. I will maybe give him credits when he will win a grass tournament.
Nadal didn't almost beat Federer at Wimbledon, Federer almost lost that match, big difference.

 

[htrain]

Federer was playing horrendous grass court tennis for him and nadal was playing the best he could play and federer still beat him. Oh yeah and fed killed nadal and won in hamburg so dont pretend that nadals queens loss doesnt matter. However i do respect nadal because he works as hard as federer on and off court and his game is a good model for kids.

 

[welcome2petrkordaland]

Htrain & Roddhitha, u are hopeless trolls. But thanks, u give me a snicker w/ each ATP tennis "analysis."

 

[Rodditha]

I can't believe it's a Rookie saying that, your place isn't there you should go in the junior league.
For your personnal culture you should know that evryone don't have the same opinion like you and you should learn how to accept them without judging or being offensive. If you want to make friends you should put what i said into practice.