mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Actually a lot of people do (bar zealot Nadal lovers) given that there have been virtually no specialists on this surface.
So many tennis commentators have increasingly gotten weary of Nadal's dominance on clay now.
Rafael Nadal on clay - Utter dominance or a weak era for clay court players?
- Thread starter Down_the_line
- Start date
So many tennis commentators have increasingly gotten weary of Nadal's dominance on clay now.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
Maybe he would or maybe not, that's not the point. Without RFederer, we would have got many multiple slam winners enough to make it look strong. How many guys in this era has multiple slams (counting RFederer out)?
Plus not to mention AAgassi also played very well during that time.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
What's Roddick's grass record against Nadal out of interest?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
There's also a lot of commentators and former pros who are weary of Federer's legacy as well...
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
, I can say the same about AAgassi. He was playing at PEAK level, but RFederer was not :lol:Becareful what you write :lol:
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
That's because it IS a fact.
And Fed dominated for the shortest time of any great?! :lol: Who are these other greats man? Nadal, who's still chasing Federer five years after Federer's prime and in whose PEAK years Federer managed to snatch back the no. 1. ranking TWICE?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
He wouldn't beat either of them, even on grass. In 2004 yeah Roddick was great on grass but by 2005 Roddick was playing badly and relied on the draw to even get him to the final. In 2004 Hewitt was playing himself back into form and he beat Roddick from the 2004 Tennis Masters Cup until Indian Wells 2005, including at the Australian Open. It also took physical peak Roddick in 2009 5 sets to beat injury-prone, hip replaced Hewitt :lol:. And Philippoussis lost to Federer in 3 close sets, his serve and volley-net rushing game would prove too much for Roddick, and he would have the edge in experience.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Becareful what you write :lol:
So 34 year old AAgassi was playing at peak level against peak RFederer?
Imagine if AAgassi was 26 instead of 34 that day, he would blown peak RFederer away. I don't need to be careful of anything you guys are the ones making yourselves look stupid. Continue it's actually quite funny...
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
I'm sure there are. That was also the case with Sampras. The Sampras fanboys will never admit it now but when he played, a lot of people were tired of his dominance. Hell, even he got weak era crap then. It's only now that nobody actually remembers those times that his fans started crawling out of the woodwork.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
And RNadal not lucky? How many RG champions did he face at RG?
C'mon its a no brainer that competition on clay is weaker than its on grass and HC.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
You mean that 1 match between peak grass form Nadal and post-prime Roddick in 2008?
Lets stop with the desperation please.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
2005 Roddick almost lost to a lucky loser in the second round didn't he?
Hewitt would've beat him that year for sure.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
It's you who are making yourself look dumb by saying 2012 RFederer was at his peak of his power LOL. I rest my case! :lol:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Post prime Roddick played better against Federer at Wimbledon 2009 than any of his peak years. Stop embarrassing yourself.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
But I never said that. All I said was peak RFederer almost lost to 34 year old cripple AAgassi to counter the argument that since 31 year old RFederer beat prime NDjokovic and AMurray at Wimbledon it's a foregone conclusion that younger RFederer would win even easier.
Rest your case, and learn how to read.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Roddick won USO a couple months after 2003 Wimbledon. He also won Canada and Cinci right after Wimbledon. Where was Philippoussis and his experience?
Slow HC matches have no bearing on a grass match between Hewitt and Roddick. The h2h is 4-0 for Hewitt on slow HC, 3-0 for Roddick on grass.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Murray lost to Roddick at Wimbledon in 2009 when everyone expected him to make the finals. And Roddick wasn't close to his prime. I'd check my premises before making such arguments if I were you.
Djokovic lost to Safin on grass and Safin HATED grass.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Yeah just like post-prime Roddick played better than ever against Federer in 2008 Miami when he finally managed to beat him after losing 11 straight. :lol:
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
Learn the difference between "almost lost" and "actually beating" them. Until you do, its not even worth arguing.
Btw, thanks for the laugh
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Murray beat Roddick in 06 Wimbledon. This is when Roddick was still young and Murray was only a teenager. So yeah, check your own premises first.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Learn the difference between "almost lost" and "actually beating" them. Until you do, its not even worth arguing.
Btw, thanks for the laugh
Learn the difference between 6 years and 11 years first.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
I remember MSafin made some rude comments after that match ridiculing NDjokovic...
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Agassi was a better player than Djokovic and Murray.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Is this a joke? Federer is playing his worst tennis in years. Djokovic is obviously slumping with a wrist injury added on top of that. Neither of them would've made the finals i that era because while there was no consistent top 4, there were just too many explosive players who could certainly pull off upsets if nothing else. Oh and Murray just returned from a back surgery. Very strong era there. :lol:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
So, take away the credit from Roddick in that WIM09 final and just say Fed wasn't at his best. Well, it's ok, I don't really care about Roddick's performances against Roger, Nadal's mopped the floor with Federer in every major tournament bar one which Fed always conveniently loses the round before facing him because he's afraid :lol:
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
Is that all you've got to say? :lol:
You got my point I was trying to make but you still proceeded to make yourself look dumb.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Hardcourt matches have no bearing on grass matches, and Philippoussis knew that this would be one of his last chances to win a major, whereas Roddick would be in his first major final. This had no effect on Roddick when he played Ferrero at the US Open, but playing against a seasoned grass, serve and volley-er who employed power tactics... Roddick wouldn't have the same luck.
Hewitt after his hip replacement took Roddick to 5 sets in 2009, if that match had been played a year or two earlier Hewitt might have won. If that's how much a 3-0 H2H plus means on grass than I don't know what else to say.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
..yes, and then lost to the same guy when he was in his prime. The idea that Murray could take these guys out is preposterous right there. Especially if they can beat him out of their prime years. Let's face it, Murray even today, isn't that much of a factor at majors.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Neither of them were at their best anymore. Federer just went 5 with Haas at RG, nevermind Del Potro. Pretending that they were is stupid. Are you stupid? Apparently so, buddy boy. :lol:
firepanda
Professional
As people have said, there are two crucial differences.
Firstly, Federer's opposition during his prime were numerous: Agassi, Roddick, Sampras, Hewitt, Safin, Baghdatis, Nalbandian, Djokovic and, towards the end, Murray and Nadal. If Federer did not exist, these players would have spread the trophy haul out between them. With many players competing for dominance, it suggests none of them are particularly good (just look at WTA for the past 5 years), since you're more likely to get 10 good players than 10 brilliant players. Nadal's trophies, on the other hand, would have largely been picked up by Djokovic and Federer. I think we know how good these two are.
Secondly, Federer's prime lasted 3 years, after which he was beaten by better (more on-form) players, namely Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. That is a distinct increase in level, suggesting that the previous level was weaker than usual. Nadal on the other hand, has yet to be beaten consistently at RG after 10 years. He has seen several shifts in the landscape and rode over all of them with ease, Djokovic (who is a match up issue) aside.
Regarding clay court specialists, we do still have a few clay court specialists and Nadal beats them all quite easily. In fact, Nadal made his name beating them when he was an up and comer. The other player with a clay-courter-ish game is Gasquet and you can see his record against Nadal. The reason we have fewer cc specialists now, incidentally, is due to surface homogenization, so the current gen's game fares a little better on the dirt.
Firstly, Federer's opposition during his prime were numerous: Agassi, Roddick, Sampras, Hewitt, Safin, Baghdatis, Nalbandian, Djokovic and, towards the end, Murray and Nadal. If Federer did not exist, these players would have spread the trophy haul out between them. With many players competing for dominance, it suggests none of them are particularly good (just look at WTA for the past 5 years), since you're more likely to get 10 good players than 10 brilliant players. Nadal's trophies, on the other hand, would have largely been picked up by Djokovic and Federer. I think we know how good these two are.
Secondly, Federer's prime lasted 3 years, after which he was beaten by better (more on-form) players, namely Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. That is a distinct increase in level, suggesting that the previous level was weaker than usual. Nadal on the other hand, has yet to be beaten consistently at RG after 10 years. He has seen several shifts in the landscape and rode over all of them with ease, Djokovic (who is a match up issue) aside.
Regarding clay court specialists, we do still have a few clay court specialists and Nadal beats them all quite easily. In fact, Nadal made his name beating them when he was an up and comer. The other player with a clay-courter-ish game is Gasquet and you can see his record against Nadal. The reason we have fewer cc specialists now, incidentally, is due to surface homogenization, so the current gen's game fares a little better on the dirt.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Philippoussis knew that same fact when he faced Federer. And what good did it do him. He'd lose to Roddick just like he lost to Federer. Roddick was in incredible form the entire summer of 2003. He couldve won Wimbledon, Canada, Cinci, and USO back to back. Philippoussis was no match for him.
You can believe whatever you want regarding 2005 Wimbledon. Either could've won, but I and most others would favour Roddick that year.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Federer >>> Roddick, especially at 2003 Wimbledon where he didn't even drop a set to him. Roddick would have a harder time.
Fair enough regarding the second paragraph.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
lol, Nadal fans get more ridiculous by the minute. So now Federer's era is weak because he had too much opposition nipping at his heels. So basically, Federer just went from having no opposition to having way too much opposition. :lol:
Yes, so Federer post his supposed "three-year" dominance has been suddenly inferior to all these guys and yet you are the one inflating him on clay right there in the previous paragraph. So essentially, Federer is extremely good when assessing Nadal's competition on clay and at the same time, INFERIOR to three players while assessing Federer's own competition. So basically, Federer is supposed to be "good competition" for Nadal while simultaneously being a "weak era beneficiary."
Please, get out. Not one Nadal fan on this board has any sense of logical reasoning (OR factual knowledge of the game. I mean three years?!)
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
17>14.... why so serious? Be content! Your boy is the closest thing to a GOAT we have.
NatF
Bionic Poster
The_Order has gone full on troll mode.
lol at flaunting a match in 2006 when Roddick was playing terribly and in a slump but ignoring a much more important match (e.g. SF) in 2009.
He's given the typical Nadal fangirl arguments too. So Federer counts as Nadal's clay competition but we don't count Nadal as Federer's grass competition? Dishonesty. Not to mention the fact that as well as Hewitt and Roddick on hard courts Federer had other guys like Agassi, Davydenko and Nalbandian.
Despite what crap The_Order has been pedalling Agassi when in form was still excellent in 2004/2005 on hard courts. His matches at the slams in 2004 were very high quality. And he brought an extremely high level at Cinncinati and Madrid that year too. In 2005 his win/loss record on the surface was comparable to every year on hard courts bar 1995 - that's without considering half his losses were to Federer himself. You look at the winner to errors stats and you can see he was playing a high level still. He managed equal numbers against Federer in the USO final compared to what he did versus Sampras 10 years earlier. Yet apparently he was shell of himself in 2005. Even in 2005 in the big matches on hards Agassi would kick the asses of most of the current top 10.
Watch the Safin vs Agassi Madrid match on youtube, the Roddick vs Agassi Cinncinati match etc...if you think Agassi couldn't still play ball.
Nadal is better on grass than Federer or Djokovic especially if you think Federer/Djokovic >>>>>> Hewitt/Roddick
Little bit of information for the less aware. Roddick at Wimbledon has a record at least as good as Djokovic's at the French. He also has several Queen's titles which is the premier grass tournament after Wimbledon. Not only that but his 2 best offerings versus Federer at Wimbledon were both at least as good as anything Federer or Djokovic managed against Nadal at the French. Hewitt has a Wimbledon title e.g. more accomplished than Djokovic
, many Queens titles and wins over Sampras and Federer in grass court finals.
So no way are Federer/Djokovic way way better than Roddick and Hewitt in terms of grass versus clay competition.
Not to mention that Roddick and Hewitt each a USO and multiple masters and YEC combined on hards. But apparently they're much worse than even clay slamless Djokovic...
lol at flaunting a match in 2006 when Roddick was playing terribly and in a slump but ignoring a much more important match (e.g. SF) in 2009.
He's given the typical Nadal fangirl arguments too. So Federer counts as Nadal's clay competition but we don't count Nadal as Federer's grass competition? Dishonesty. Not to mention the fact that as well as Hewitt and Roddick on hard courts Federer had other guys like Agassi, Davydenko and Nalbandian.
Despite what crap The_Order has been pedalling Agassi when in form was still excellent in 2004/2005 on hard courts. His matches at the slams in 2004 were very high quality. And he brought an extremely high level at Cinncinati and Madrid that year too. In 2005 his win/loss record on the surface was comparable to every year on hard courts bar 1995 - that's without considering half his losses were to Federer himself. You look at the winner to errors stats and you can see he was playing a high level still. He managed equal numbers against Federer in the USO final compared to what he did versus Sampras 10 years earlier. Yet apparently he was shell of himself in 2005. Even in 2005 in the big matches on hards Agassi would kick the asses of most of the current top 10.
Watch the Safin vs Agassi Madrid match on youtube, the Roddick vs Agassi Cinncinati match etc...if you think Agassi couldn't still play ball.
Nadal is better on grass than Federer or Djokovic especially if you think Federer/Djokovic >>>>>> Hewitt/Roddick
Little bit of information for the less aware. Roddick at Wimbledon has a record at least as good as Djokovic's at the French. He also has several Queen's titles which is the premier grass tournament after Wimbledon. Not only that but his 2 best offerings versus Federer at Wimbledon were both at least as good as anything Federer or Djokovic managed against Nadal at the French. Hewitt has a Wimbledon title e.g. more accomplished than Djokovic
, many Queens titles and wins over Sampras and Federer in grass court finals. So no way are Federer/Djokovic way way better than Roddick and Hewitt in terms of grass versus clay competition.
Not to mention that Roddick and Hewitt each a USO and multiple masters and YEC combined on hards. But apparently they're much worse than even clay slamless Djokovic...
Last edited:
Mayonnaise
Banned
For one thing, Nadal hasn't mopped the floor with Federer at Wimbledon. For another, was Nadal afraid of Kubot last year at Wimbledon? Is that why he lost to Darcis?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Nadal wouldn't have beaten Kubot either way. He was destined for his loss.For one thing, Nadal hasn't mopped the floor with Federer at Wimbledon. For another, was Nadal afraid of Kubot last year at Wimbledon? Is that why he lost to Darcis?
firepanda
Professional
I'm not a Nadal fan and I do think I'm one of the more logical members here, although that's a bit like say I'm a nice-smelling sewer rat. I do think Federer got a lot of his slams without any severe competition, but I don't think it's nearly to the extent some Nadal fans exaggerate and I do not believe it takes anything away from 17 grand slams. Federer is the GOAT by a good distance.
When fans say he had no opposition, they mean no serious opposition. He obviously had to face someone to win those slams right? This is merely explaining why said opposition is not serious. There were about 10 players who all took turns at losing to Federer. Their number suggests they weren't the once-in-an-era talent of Nadal, Federer or Djokovic.
You can be good competition to someone while being inferior to them. Not that I said he was the inferior player: they simply became competitive in 2007-. I fail to see the double standard. They were competitive and started to surpass him in slam frequency post dominance, which is why he's not winning many slams now. Federer remained competitive on clay post-dominance, even winning 2009.
Game Set Match Mr.Federer
New User
I think you guys are really not thinking about something here. There really has not been a week era except for maybe the 2000-2002 era. FEDERER just made everybody LOOK like chumps during the late 2003-2007 years, albeit Nadal started dominating on clay from 2005 and on. Nadal is an absolutely jaw dropping phenom who develpoed much earlier than everybody else on clay. Then Djokovic came along and wrecked everybody in 2011 establishing his presence. Then Murray was upgraded by Lendl and so on. So in recent times there has been no weak era. Only the presence of the Big Four has made it seem that way.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
2000-2002 wasn't even that weak, you had Hewitt, Agassi, Sampras, Safin, Rafter and a couple of others.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
And by 2002 Federer was a top ten player don't forget.
Federer20042006
Banned
Also keep in mind - Robredo's one masters series title came when Federer and Nadal both skipped Hamburg in 2006 (after their grueling classic in Rome). I think it's safe to say if they're both there, Robredo doesn't win the title, and almost certainly not if even one of them is there.
Federer20042006
Banned
......Federer has the record for most consecutive weeks at #1 and most total weeks at #1......
Federer also is second all-time with winning at least one slam 8 consecutive years.
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
Lol, I guess you'll never be posting in Fed vs Nadal matches in Match Results! :lol:
djokovicwimbledon
Banned
It is both. Combine by far the best clay courter in history, combined with a weak clay period with no other top 20 clay courters all time, and you get accomplishments that dwarf the 2nd best in history on the surface by an unprecedented margin. This despite the 2nd best clay courter in history also played in one of the weaker clay eras.
djokovicwimbledon
Banned
Djokovic will end up as a better player than Agassi.
Anyway in a discussion on clay I guarantee you Djokovic is giving Nadal much more trouble on clay than Agassi ever would have, and he is already a better clay courter despite not winning a French. Agassi won only 1 Masters on clay and it was when he 32, and Djokovic has been in the semis or better of Roland Garros 7 times already.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
utter dominance!
forehand fan
Rookie
he certainly is more of a threat than any of roddick safin or hewitt, don't believe me just check their records in grand slams.
