Nadal's dominance on Clay being counted against him

[Prisoner of Birth]

Pretty much everyone agrees that Nadal is the greatest claycourt player of all time. Those who don't will atleast have to agree that he is by far the most successful on that surface; and he's not even done yet. But I often see his remarkable achievements on the surface being held against him. Like it somehow proves he is not as great as his achievements would suggest. For instance, there's the thread that seems to suggest Djokovic is better because he has more hardcourt and grasscourt slams than Nadal does (while, of course, people are entitled to their opinions, regardless of stats and achievements). My question is, why? Why would you have to disregard Nadal's claycourt wins? While it's true that over 60% of his slams being on clay make it look like he's not very versatile, his 2 Wimbledon titles, 1 US Open title, and 1 Australian Open title prove otherwise. True, he's not as versatile as Federer is. But then, who is? A single loss in 8 FO tournaments is insane. Wins against Federer in the Wimbledon final and Djokovic in the US Open final are huge. If you're discussing GOAT claims, by all means, deride him for his claycourt exploits skewing his otherwise not-THAT-great numbers. But trying to take away from his remarkable achievements on clay in every single argument is just not right.

 

[BHud]

Quote "in every single argument is just not right."

Welcome to the TW boards...where not much is "right"...only hyperbole....but highly entertaining!

 

[Clarky21]

Pretty much everyone agrees that Nadal is the greatest claycourt player of all time. Those who don't will atleast have to agree that he is by far the most successful on that surface; and he's not even done yet. But I often see his remarkable achievements on the surface being held against him. Like it somehow proves he is not as great as his achievements would suggest. For instance, there's the thread that seems to suggest Djokovic is better because he has more hardcourt and grasscourt slams than Nadal does (while, of course, people are entitled to their opinions, regardless of stats and achievements). My question is, why? Why would you have to disregard Nadal's claycourt wins? While it's true that over 60% of his slams being on clay make it look like he's not very versatile, his 2 Wimbledon titles, 1 US Open title, and 1 Australian Open title prove otherwise. True, he's not as versatile as Federer is. But then, who is? A single loss in 8 FO tournaments is insane. Wins against Federer in the Wimbledon final and Djokovic in the US Open final are huge. If you're discussing GOAT claims, by all means, deride him for his claycourt exploits skewing his otherwise not-THAT-great numbers. But trying to take away from his remarkable achievements on clay in every single argument is just not right.

Cvac has only one Wimby title to Nadal's 2. He has also only made one final there while Nadal has made 5. Nadal is lightyears away from Cvac when it comes to playing on grass.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Cvac has only one Wimby title to Nadal's 2. He has also only made one final there while Nadal has made 5. Nadal is lightyears away from Cvac when it comes to playing on grass.

I meant more Grass+Hard court titles combined. See the thread I was referring to. Nadal is significantly better than Djokovic on Grass.

 

[Alchemy-Z]

yeah those lets subtract his clay titles for goat debate threads because it's his best surface kill me lol..


Lets take away Michel Phelps Medals for the butterfly stroke (his best stroke) (5 Olympic Golds 1 Silver)

leaves him with 16 Medals (2nd greatest Olympian of all time)

and would make Larisa Latynina the OGOAT with 18 medal tally.

so take away his greatest Stroke and you knock him out of the #1 spot.

how is that fair to his legacy?

not very...about as fair as discounting clay titles for Nadal

 

[ollinger]

The OP is taking these idiotic player debates ("Djokovic has never failed to reach a slam semi during Daylight Savings Time") a bit too seriously.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

The OP is taking these idiotic player debates ("Djokovic has never failed to reach a slam semi during Daylight Savings Time") a bit too seriously.

Perhaps I am. It's just that I'm seeing too many of them with ridiculous assumptions.

 

[Tennis sensation]

Perhaps I am. It's just that I'm seeing too many of them with ridiculous assumptions.

Well this is TTW. What do you expect?

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Well this is TTW. What do you expect?

:lol:
Touche'

 

[DoubleDeuce]

Nadal is best on clay because he is talented physically. His biceps are bigger than most everybody else, and that's what clay surface needs the most.

It doesnt mean that he doesnt have soft talent, he does. But it's not as significant. As a result, he has to fight twice more to get what he wants and to get there he is willing to do ANYTHING.

Anything can be a shoulder bump, or ....the story you know.

Because of his physical nature of success, he is looked at as a freak. Some freaks are respected, but at the end they are freaks.

 

[veroniquem]

Dominance on any surface cannot be held AGAINST someone. Only weaknesses on surfaces can be held against a player, ie Sampras's weakness on clay is usually held against him and hurts his legacy (compared to Fed for instance).

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Nadal is best on clay because he is talented physically. His biceps are bigger than most everybody else, and that's what clay surface needs the most.

It doesnt mean that he doesnt have soft talent, he does. But it's not as significant. As a result, he has to fight twice more to get what he wants and to get there he is willing to do ANYTHING.

Anything can be a shoulder bump, or ....the story you know.

Because of his physical nature of success, he is looked at as a freak. Some freaks are respected, but at the end they are freaks.

I see what you mean. Nadal is a better Tennis player than he is a shotmaker. He may not be everybody's cup of tea but, in the end, what counts is a player's ability to win matches and Nadal is very, very capable in this regard.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Unfortuanately, this is the ugly side of dominance is that someone will always say that the competition was weak.

A weak era...

 

[smoledman]

Why is Roger's all around excellence held against him? For some reason he's penalized for not having won multiple RG titles, multiple Monte Carlo + Rome titles.

 

[beast of mallorca]

Quote "in every single argument is just not right."

Welcome to the TW boards...where not much is "right"...only hyperbole....but highly entertaining!

HAha...truer words haven't been spoken; esp here in TW. You just have to go with the flow here.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Why is Roger's all around excellence held against him? For some reason he's penalized for not having won multiple RG titles, multiple Monte Carlo + Rome titles.

I've never seen anyone complain about Federer not winning multiple RG titles. Except maybe some hardcore Nadal fans who don't know what they're talking about.

 

[merlinpinpin]

It's not so much held against him as it is, ahem, I guess I should say "asterisqued", to use an official TTW term.

Truth is, Nadal is the best player on clay, ever. That isn't really open to debate anymore, except for Borg nostalgics. But, on the other hand, looking at clay only may give the feeling that Nadal is better than he really is. I mean, he is definitely tier 2 all-time (like Borg and Sampras), which is huge, but tier 1 really seems out of reach for him, as *outside clay*, his resume is "nothing special" (although he managed to get at least one of each of the big ones). 14 titles in a dozen years since he turned pro is nothing to scoff at, but he has no place at all in the GOAT debate (just like Sampras hasn't, for other reasons, the most glaring being his lack of results on clay).

So, his dominance on clay isn't used against him, but it can't be used to elevate his status to a kind of "all-around GOAT" either.

Plus, the long-lost cousin of DRII would have a field day telling us that the only reason Nadal won so many tournaments on clay is because we're currently in the weakest clay era ever...

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

It's not so much held against him as it is, ahem, I guess I should say "asterisqued", to use an official TTW term.

Truth is, Nadal is the best player on clay, ever. That isn't really open to debate anymore, except for Borg nostalgics. But, on the other hand, looking at clay only may give the feeling that Nadal is better than he really is. I mean, he is definitely tier 2 all-time (like Borg and Sampras), which is huge, but tier 1 really seems out of reach for him, as *outside clay*, his resume is "nothing special" (although he managed to get at least one of each of the big ones). 14 titles in a dozen years since he turned pro is nothing to scoff at, but he has no place at all in the GOAT debate (just like Sampras hasn't, for other reasons, the most glaring being his lack of results on clay).

So, his dominance on clay isn't used against him, but it can't be used to elevate his status to a kind of "all-around GOAT" either.

Plus, the long-lost cousin of DRII would have a field day telling us that the only reason Nadal won so many tournaments on clay is because we're currently in the weakest clay era ever...

Just curious, who all would you say are tier 1 GOAT?

 

[DoubleDeuce]

I see what you mean. Nadal is a better Tennis player than he is a shotmaker. He may not be everybody's cup of tea but, in the end, what counts is a player's ability to win matches and Nadal is very, very capable in this regard.

I agree that winning is the goal and is what counts for many fans or viewers and supporters.

But have you heard that they say: Quality is a journey, not a destination.

Destination, winnin in this case, is not everything imo. How you win can make it better or not as great, even though the results remain the same.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Just curious, who all would you say are tier 1 GOAT?

We each have our lists, of course (with their merits or not, depending ), mine (a mix of dominance, major titles, etc.) being (in chronological order): Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, and Federer.

If I had to rank them inside this tier (which I don't really want to), the top two would be Laver and Federer, in whatever order (or tied, I don't really care).

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

We each have our lists, of course (with their merits or not, depending ), mine (a mix of dominance, major titles, etc.) being (in chronological order): Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, and Federer.

If I had to rank them inside this tier (which I don't really want to), the top two would be Laver and Federer, in whatever order (or tied, I don't really care).

What I look for in the GOAT is mainly a high peak-level, versatility, consistency, longevity, and aura. And for me, that's Federer. Nadal, by the time he's done, will probably finish 2nd in my list, mainly for having the edge over Federer, although that has more to do with the match-up advantage than anything else.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

I agree that winning is the goal and is what counts for many fans or viewers and supporters.

But have you heard that they say: Quality is a journey, not a destination.

Destination, winnin in this case, is not everything imo. How you win can make it better or not as great, even though the results remain the same.

Generally, unless the means is illegal or unethical, I don't place too much importance on it. I do find Nadal an exceptional shotmaker, especially from defensive positions when he's seemingly already lost the point. But yes, I can see how some find his play grating and unappealing but it does impress me. Different strokes for different folks

 

[Chillaxer]

Yes, I agree. The slams are across all surfaces and since two are hardcourt slams, they would seem to favour a hard-court specialist most. It's perfectly valid that his slam count maycontain more of what he's good at, I mean, why **** Sampras because he couldn;t wina French and won so much on grass?

 

[timnz]

The perception is wrong

People arent trying take take away from nadals clay and french open record when they mention his record on the surfaces. He is the greatest of all time on clay. No doubt. It is just when people start talking about nadal being in the conversation about the VERY best player of all time, well things dont add up. His relatively small number of wins in 4 out of 5 of the most important championships (slams and WTF) to date show that he can't be part of that coversation YET (he may get there one day, he is an amazing player when time still on his side). But this takes nothing away from his achievements on clay which have no peer. Overall he is still one of the greatest of all time.

 

[timnz]

Yes, I agree. The slams are across all surfaces and since two are hardcourt slams, they would seem to favour a hard-court specialist most. It's perfectly valid that his slam count maycontain more of what he's good at, I mean, why **** Sampras because he couldn;t wina French and won so much on grass?

2 hard court slams would then give someone twice as much opportunities to win one though.

 

[Chillaxer]

People arent trying take take away from nadals clay and french open record when they mention his record on the surfaces. He is the greatest of all time on clay. No doubt. It is just when people start talking about nadal being in the conversation about the VERY best player of all time, well things dont add up. His relatively small number of wins in 4 out of 5 of the most important championships (slams and WTF) to date show that he can't be part of that coversation YET (he may get there one day, he is an amazing player when time still on his side). But this takes nothing away from his achievements on clay which have no peer. Overall he is still one of the greatest of all time.

I'm not disagreeing that he doesn;thave the numbers for GOAT, but I just believe that 11 slams is 11 slams, however you do it, and it makes no sense to give weighting to each one, he should ge the credit for 11, regardless of the fact a lot are on clay.

 

[Chillaxer]

2 hard court slams would then give someone twice as much opportunities to win one though.

That's what I meant.

 

[DeShaun]

Dominance on any surface cannot be held AGAINST someone. Only weaknesses on surfaces can be held against a player, ie Sampras's weakness on clay is usually held against him and hurts his legacy (compared to Fed for instance).

Sampras played in a less homogenized era with true clay specialists, unlike the present-day, weaker clay era that Rafa has been dominating. Surely you can admit this?

 

[Chillaxer]

Sampras played in a less homogenized era with true clay specialists, unlike the present-day, weaker clay era that Rafa has been dominating. Surely you can admit this?

No. Plenty of good clay players now, just as many as then. The Spanish lot for one, and the French.

 

[DeShaun]

No. Plenty of good clay players now, just as many as then. The Spanish lot for one, and the French.

I will have to look at a run down of the different names of players who specialized on clay during Pete's era, and then do my best to compare these with the list of players today who, you allege, make up a stronger or equally solid clay era. My main premise is that homogenization puts pressure on the specialists to diversify their games which encourages a shrinking population of specialists.

 

[namelessone]

No. Plenty of good clay players now, just as many as then. The Spanish lot for one, and the French.

The spanish ones don't count dude, they bend over. Don't you read TW?

And the frenchies have flair but no substance. They are just as likely to bend over for Nadal.

Heck, Fed himself bent over for Nadal so many times in RG and on clay.

Djokovic did the very same thing 3 times this year on clay.

All the people who shout weak era here forget that a teen Nadal was beating RG champions(one example - beat the reigning 2002 RG champ in MC 2003, Nadal being only 16 at the time) or finalists and that most of the "true claycourters" from the 90's wouldn't stand a chance against Nadal on a claycourt. The only ones with a shot would be Muster(being a lefty that liked to grind) and Kuerten(because of his skill with handling high balls on his BH).

 

[veroniquem]

Sampras played in a less homogenized era with true clay specialists, unlike the present-day, weaker clay era that Rafa has been dominating. Surely you can admit this?

Weaker clay era? Of course not.

 

[NadalAgassi]

yeah those lets subtract his clay titles for goat debate threads because it's his best surface kill me lol..


Lets take away Michel Phelps Medals for the butterfly stroke (his best stroke) (5 Olympic Golds 1 Silver)

leaves him with 16 Medals (2nd greatest Olympian of all time)

and would make Larisa Latynina the OGOAT with 18 medal tally.

actually it would take away all his Medley relay golds too as he would not be put on a 4 x 100 medley relay for any other stroke. He was never the best American 100 freestyler or even 2nd best, nor 100 backstroker, and he doesnt even swim the breaststroke except in his IMs. So he is down to 13 medals in that scenario in fact.

 

[Crisstti]

Only haters count Nadal's dominance on clay against him.

The spanish ones don't count dude, they bend over. Don't you read TW?

And the frenchies have flair but no substance. They are just as likely to bend over for Nadal.

Heck, Fed himself bent over for Nadal so many times in RG and on clay.

Djokovic did the very same thing 3 times this year on clay.

All the people who shout weak era here forget that a teen Nadal was beating RG champions(one example - beat the reigning 2002 RG champ in MC 2003, Nadal being only 16 at the time) or finalists and that most of the "true claycourters" from the 90's wouldn't stand a chance against Nadal on a claycourt. The only ones with a shot would be Muster(being a lefty that liked to grind) and Kuerten(because of his skill with handling high balls on his BH).

Exactly.

 

[Chillaxer]

The spanish ones don't count dude, they bend over. Don't you read TW?

And the frenchies have flair but no substance. They are just as likely to bend over for Nadal.

Heck, Fed himself bent over for Nadal so many times in RG and on clay.

Djokovic did the very same thing 3 times this year on clay.

All the people who shout weak era here forget that a teen Nadal was beating RG champions(one example - beat the reigning 2002 RG champ in MC 2003, Nadal being only 16 at the time) or finalists and that most of the "true claycourters" from the 90's wouldn't stand a chance against Nadal on a claycourt. The only ones with a shot would be Muster(being a lefty that liked to grind) and Kuerten(because of his skill with handling high balls on his BH).

If anything, Nadal let Fed have RG 2009 too easily, are you seriously telling me Fed 'let' Rafa have so many RG's? Rubbish. And the likes of Ferrer and Verdasco do not 'bend over' for Nadal, that's utterly nsulting, have you seen them play him? Seen the AO semi final against Verdasco 2009? Or when Ferrer knockked Rafa out the AO? You'd never accept that American players would do that so don't talk balls.