The_Order
G.O.A.T.
There's no competition tougher than Nadal on clay.
The field struggles badly to win significant clay titles despite Novak, Federer, Del Potro, Ferrer, Wawrinka and even Murray all having games that were developed on clay.
Nadal won last 15 slam matches over Djok/Murr/Fed, anyone else done that to rivals?
- Thread starter tennis_commentator
- Start date
There's no competition tougher than Nadal on clay.
The field struggles badly to win significant clay titles despite Novak, Federer, Del Potro, Ferrer, Wawrinka and even Murray all having games that were developed on clay.
Chico
Banned
LOL none of those really know where and how Novak grew up. Just see him slide and know there are lots of clay courts in Serbia and making conclusions. Yes if you play tennis in Serbia you will play on clay a lot, but saying that Novak "grew up on clay" is not correct.
As said, Novak grew up on HC courts of Kopaonik mountain resorts, he later moved back to Belgrade where he did play some time on clay indeed, but soon moved further (Germany - Pilic academy, ...). Not nearly clay specialist you are trying to make him.
His very first tennis years were on HC, that is the fact. Sorry.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/sports/tennis/05iht-tennis05.html?_r=0
So you see, he did grow up on outdoor clay as well as HC, not just HC only...
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
This is very unconvincing evidence as the writer is just trying to beat up the difficulties facing the American squad and produces no evidence whatsoever.
Chico
Banned
Trying to teach me what kind of courts existed on Kopaonik 20 years ago :roll:
Neither of you nor that journalist have ever been there.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
torpantennis
Legend
LOL, Nadal fans are so desperate. At the slightest stay to facts OP. Nadal has ONLY won his last 7 slam matches against Djok/Murr/Fed, dating back to AO12. Do I need to remind you how Fed dominated his own generation?
Chico
Banned
Still not giving up?
He is talking about Gulbis there and how Gulbis grew up on clay and how they played at Pilic Academy. That was much later.
LOL, no one is saying he never played on clay. Of course he did and you can see that, but his first tennis steps are made on HC. That is the fact.
So saying Novak "grew up on clay" and implying he is some kind of clay court specialist is simply not a true statement.
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Age 13 is much later? LOL.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
The quotation does not prove the point you keep failing to make:
'He [GULBIS] grew up on clay. We played mostly in the academy. I remember those days [after Djokovic was fourteen/iffteen and attending the Plici Academy in Germany] we played on clay courts a lot'
'He [GULBIS] grew up on clay. We played mostly in the academy. I remember those days [after Djokovic was fourteen/iffteen and attending the Plici Academy in Germany] we played on clay courts a lot'
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
He was 13. Don't let the facts get in the way. It's just funny how you have a go at journalists for not doing research, but you haven't done any yourself...
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
The article gives Gulbis' age as the article is mainly about him.
But you are the one with the pathological addiction to promoting Djokovic's abilities in order to elevate Nadal so I take it you will continue.
I'm also not paid to do journalistic research and fourteen does seem right based on this article.
But you are the one with the pathological addiction to promoting Djokovic's abilities in order to elevate Nadal so I take it you will continue.
I'm also not paid to do journalistic research and fourteen does seem right based on this article.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
I'll continue because neither you or that other clown know what you're talking about.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
It should be noted that Federer missed the best Nadal from 05-07. He only had to play kid version.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Yes, you quote articles which you think prove Djokovic grew up on clay where it's clearly written that Gulbis grew up on clay.
Found any more of this kind of meticulous proof?
Found any more of this kind of meticulous proof?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
You jump from one to another article and for what?
Nadal beats Djokovic on clay most of the time, so why the incessant drive to prove that Djokovic had just as good an education on clay as Nadal when all the evidence speaks to the contrary.
Both Federer and Djokovic are adept at all surfaces, whereas Nadal is singularly adept on clay and hence his record at RG.
Nadal beats Djokovic on clay most of the time, so why the incessant drive to prove that Djokovic had just as good an education on clay as Nadal when all the evidence speaks to the contrary.
Both Federer and Djokovic are adept at all surfaces, whereas Nadal is singularly adept on clay and hence his record at RG.
Last edited:
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Didn't expect this type of post from you. "Mickey mouse tournaments"??? Disappointing.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
I don't jump from one article to another, it's called finding multiple sources of evidence to back your claims which is what I've done.
You on the other hand can do nothing but back track and talk utter crap.
The point is to prove that Novak has had a very solid up bringing on clay, more so than HC because that slab of concrete he trained on when he was a toddler has very little bearing on his HC game that we see today.
You just can't accept that the top players in the world all had a clay up bringing and Nadal is the best of the lot of that surface.
It also destroys the more tougher competition on HC theory. How can the competition on HC be tougher when all the top players in the world honed their craft on clay?
It's ok though, keep believing it isn't true, maybe it helps you sleep better...
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
You just trumpet other players ability on clay to make Nadal more God-like and hence more worthy of your adoration.
Don't you think a more conventional religion might respond to your need better?
Don't you think a more conventional religion might respond to your need better?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nadal wasn't a kid in 07...
But ofcourse that is also true. Their primes barely intersected and their peaks never did.
torpantennis
Legend
What? Their primes did intersect. If Fed prime is 2003-2009, and Nadal prime 2007-2013, the years 2007-2009 intersect. Their slam count within that time window was 6-4 Federer.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Barely as in 2 years out of the prime+prime window of 10 years you're using. I'd say that qualifies as barely intersecting.
NatF
Bionic Poster
What Russel said ^^
This right here is nonsense. Growing up clay means squat unless clay turns out to be your best surface. Players like Novak and Roger are clearly better on HC than on clay as are most of the top players the last decade. That's why HC competition is tougher.
torpantennis
Legend
2007-2009 is THREE years. And that three years is almost half of the 7 year primes! So no, it's not "just barely".
NatF
Bionic Poster
Consider that 2008 was affected my mono and you'll see that those 3 years does come under - just barely.
torpantennis
Legend
The fact is that even with mono, Fed won more slams during the years when the primes intersected. Without mono...
DRII
G.O.A.T.
I'm from the south, we use a lot more spice than that
Popeyes > Bojangles???
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nadal was injured in 2009 and won 3 slams in 2010...
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
So, we're back to mono now ? :-?
tennis_commentator
Hall of Fame
Just out of interest, who do you think would win if Djokovic or Federer played Bruguera/Muster at the French Open?
Krish872007
Talk Tennis Guru
torpantennis
Legend
When Federer was 29yo, well past his prime.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
You guys need to let this go. Some of this bickering is completely pointless and we're not getting anywhere fast.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Close, but I have to say no. Their chicken itself is, but everything else is better at Bojez.
tennis_commentator
Hall of Fame
If you are the greatest you can wins slams well beyond his prime, for example 2013 Nadal winning RG and USO, and 2014 Nadal winning RG.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
These kinds of fantasy tennis matches are not interesting to even speculate about. Times change and tennis moves on.
torpantennis
Legend
Nadal in 2014 was the same age as Federer in 2009. Nadal won his pet slam, Fed was ridiculously close to having NCYGS!
tennis_commentator
Hall of Fame
Nadal was an early-bloomer, so his prime was at a younger age.
You didn't follow Nadal's early years methinks.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Muster was 111-5 on clay in 1995-1996 combined. He won 18 tournaments on the surface in that period. And contrary to Muster's critics, these 18 tournaments included many big tournaments like a French Open, 2 Italian Opens, 2 Monte Carlos, 2 Barcelonas and 2 Stuttgart Outdoors, as well as wins in places like the high altitude of Mexico City and the even higher altitude of Bogota up in the Andes. And to think that some people today talk about Madrid's altitude :lol:
The 1996 French Open loss to Stich was one of the biggest tennis upsets of the decade.
torpantennis
Legend
Nadal was not that early bloomer. In 2005-2007, he was only winning consistently on clay. And he was winning that early on clay, because the clay field was relatively weak and because his peak level ON CLAY is just so ridiculously high.
It was only in 2008-09, that Nadal matured to win on all surfaces. Federer was of the same age in 2003-2004. So tell me, where's that mystical "early bloom"?
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal knows how to dominate the big boys in the biggest tournaments. Still can't believe he lost 3 Slam finals between 2011 and 2012 though.
addictedtotopspin
New User
HAHAHAHA
Poor Chico hahhahahahhaha
Even more poor sounds things like sickness or rain then Pascal Maria (btw when Novak touched the net it was clear Rafaels point) There is no hard draw for Rafa on RG till finals, its not his fault that there is for Novak
addictedtotopspin
New User
THing is that Rafa won first Slam with 19 years old (Roger with almost 22).No one knew that he will become that good on clay.Dominating clay is just like dominating any other surface and winning consistently on clay with 18 and 19 years old means early bloomer.Till 20 Rafa already had 2 slams and many masters...If that is not early...
I know that Rafa is so dominant on clay, that dominant so many people dont even count his clay results because they just had to happend and Rafael doesnt have anything with that, its just ment to be.
Well its not, he fought very hard for anything, including clay.
I hate when ppl say, Rafa has only 5 slams out of clay.Then i say, so what? How many Roger has out of HC or out of Grass?
:twisted: I wish Rafa wins 7 RG-s more and finish carrer with 21 slam, 40 masters and 90 tournaments.He would be undisputed GOAT, wouldnt he ?
Similar threads
- Poll
