Rafa- The Greatest Clay Courter of All Time

[federerfanatic]

Because it's the same as Agassi at the US open (04), Roddick, Wimby (04) and Haas at the Aus Open (06) for example. All of them had a bit of bad luck so Fed wasn't a bit lucky in them matches as well as other matches on his way to slams he's won? Same analogy.

Ok, he's never beaten him but he shouldn't even be close really as vice-versa (clay), let alone pushing Fed to the limit. The grass certainly is still reasonably fast and is Fed's fortress for crying out loud.

Right so your definition of luck, atleast as it applies to Federer, is now winning any match that goes 4 or 5 sets? I guess a player has to win all their matches on their way to a title in straight sets now or they are "lucky", or that just applies to Federer.

Also that Haas example is the most ridiculous of all, you should cover your head in shame for ever using that as an example. Haas was lucky as hell to even be in a 5th set, Federer destroyed him the first 2 sets and looked like he was going to cruise in straight sets and had a lapse in concentration that let Haas back in. Haas was never in the decisive 5th set, getting spanked from start to finish. That was one of the most one-sided five setters I have ever seen. Mind you all your examples are ridiculous, but that is the most ridiculous of all.

 

[Steve132]

Right so your definition of luck, atleast as it applies to Federer, is now winning any match that goes 4 or 5 sets? I guess a player has to win all their matches on their way to a title in straight sets now or they are "lucky", or that just applies to Federer.

Also that Haas example is the most ridiculous of all, you should cover your head in shame for ever using that as an example. Haas was lucky as hell to even be in a 5th set, Federer destroyed him the first 2 sets and looked like he was going to cruise in straight sets and had a lapse in concentration that let Haas back in. Haas was never in the decisive 5th set, getting spanked from start to finish. That was one of the most one-sided five setters I have ever seen. Mind you all your examples are ridiculous, but that is the most ridiculous of all.

Federerfanatic: You're right, of course, but I'm not sure that it makes much sense trying to debate this further. You will notice that Turning Pro never replied to my point that if we are to ascribe players' success to "luck" Nadal was far more lucky at Wimbledon 07 than Federer was. Soderling and Youzhny were much closer to beating him that he ever was to beating Federer.

 

[Benjamin007]

Mostly all spanish players have a good records in clay court.

 

[Aabye]

Aye, Rafa was lucky that some of his opponents were injured, but he was equally unlucky because of the rain. So it balances out. Roger was in a heap of trouble (twice!) in that fifth-set, something that has never happened to him since he started lifting that trophy. And his win was a combination of him lifting his game, and Nadal dropping his, although more of the former. More importantly, it is a matter of when the two ended up getting into their groove that turned the match. That second and fourth set showed simply spectacular tennis from the lefty. This is one of the few cases where the scores aren't close because they weren't close sets. But the tie-breaks of those sets that Roger won were equally lopsided for the same reason. But that fifth set was a struggle for both. That score doesn't tell how on edge all the Roger-Rafa fans were, because both were sweating blood at some point there.

 

[Turning Pro]

Let's face it, when Nadal broke Fed 4 times and Fed only broke his opponent 3, whilst Nadal was equally unlucky in the tie-breaks even when Feds playing v.well, it really proves Nadal should have had this if not due to bad luck and injury. LOL @ fed crying about the ball being out when Hawk-eye shows it was in. He was shook.

 

[Steve132]

Let's face it, when Nadal broke Fed 4 times and Fed only broke his opponent 3, whilst Nadal was equally unlucky in the tie-breaks even when Feds playing v.well, it really proves Nadal should have had this if not due to bad luck and injury. LOL @ fed crying about the ball being out when Hawk-eye shows it was in. He was shook.

Earth to Turning Pro: Nadal LOST the match. Whining about "bad luck and injury" will not change that unpleasant fact. It's time to get over it and move on.

 

[Turning Pro]

Dude, accept it. We're talking about variables. Like all these *******s who say ever say Fed had a chance against Nadal at the FO.(beaten 4 years now). Are you denying Fed wasn't going down barring the injury? Nadal's been MUCH close to beating Fed at Wimby than vice versa. Cause that's the whole point. And it's pretty damn hilarious too.

 

[FedExpress]

Dude, accept it. We're talking about variables. Like all these *******s who say ever say Fed had a chance against Nadal at the FO.(beaten 4 years now). Are you denying Fed wasn't going down barring the injury? Nadal's been MUCH close to beating Fed at Wimby than vice versa. Cause that's the whole point. And it's pretty damn hilarious too.

It doesn't matter how close he is at all, Federer still won the match.

 

[plain jane]

It doesn't matter how close he is at all, Federer still won the match.

Now i am a huge rafa fan and was backing him right throught the match, but this above quote is the fundamental point. people need to just let this die. rafa won RG, fed won Wimbledon. FACT. Let bygones be bygones people and look foward to 2008.

 

[anointedone]

Now i am a huge rafa fan and was backing him right throught the match, but this above quote is the fundamental point. people need to just let this die. rafa won RG, fed won Wimbledon. FACT. Let bygones be bygones people and look foward to 2008.

Exactly. Results are results, end of story.

 

[drakulie]

Luck or not, I still believe if Nadal wants to win at Wimbledon he needs to switch to a larger frame. He had way too many shanks in that match.

 

[caulcano]

Luck or not, I still believe if Nadal wants to win at Wimbledon he needs to switch to a larger frame. He had way too many shanks in that match.

If Nadal switches to a larger frame, won't Federer switch to a larger frame too?

 

[djsiva]

Luck or not, I still believe if Nadal wants to win at Wimbledon he needs to switch to a larger frame. He had way too many shanks in that match.

Nadal does ok at Wimbledon. He needs help at the US Open and Australian.

 

[Aabye]

Somehow this thread went form discussing Nadal's claycourt prowess to his all-court prowess. I think he wins at least one Slam off clay, though I don't know which. But even if he never does that says nothing about whether or not he is a clay GOAT candidate.

 

[drakulie]

If Nadal switches to a larger frame, won't Federer switch to a larger frame too?

Actually smaller.

 

[hyogen]

Clay courts suit players that don't have big serves and rely on rallys to win points. They normally aren't the greatest return of servers either but with extra time they have no problem. They also use a lot of spin. Speed is important on every surface but the other parts of their game determine what surface they are good at.

so the balls don't bounce as high/fast on clay courts? So you get a little more time to get to the balls? so ppl like Nadal can run down every ball?
how does clay suit serve and volliers?

 

[DSH]

I would say that Rafa is not the Greatest clay courter of all time...yet. He's got the longest winning streak of course, but that's not enough. You need consistency over a sustained period, and Nadal has only dominated clay for 3 years or so. If he keeps it up for another 3 or 4 then he may well be the greatest,

but he really needs 7 RG's for that.

How about 14 and counting?