Rafael Nadal: Tennis must protect clay

tennisfan87

Rookie
So we should ignore that Rafa has a losing record on HC to players ranked inside the top 5, this is essentially a collection of h2h's including those you mentioned, and just focus on the sample you like?

If anyone is ignoring the h2h it's you. Your view point is just too narrow to appreciate the wider picture.

Well, those h2h stats that you have listed don't tell us the whole picture.

How many of those matches were against Federer and Djokovic, 2 of the best hardcourters of all time? I know Nadal and Djokovic have played 21 matches on hard (more than on clay and grass).

How many of those matches were before 2008, before Rafa reached his hardcourt prime? How many after?

This is not to say that he's not substantially better on clay than on hard, but claiming that he's not a very good and competent hardcourt player is reaching to say the least.

He sits comfortably in the top 10 hardcourt players of the Open Era (I won't say of all time, since hardcourts have been a relatively young surface on the tour, since the late 1970s approximately).

His records and results on the surface support my claim. So why are you all acting as if he can't play on the surface and is a hack on it?
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, those h2h stats that you have listed don't tell us the whole picture.

How many of those matches were against Federer and Djokovic, 2 of the best hardcourters of all time? I know Nadal and Djokovic have played 21 matches on hard (more than on clay and grass).

How many of those matches were before 2008, before Rafa reached his hardcourt prime? How many after?

This is not to say that he's not substantially better on clay than on hard, but claiming that he's not a very good and competent hardcourt player is reaching to say the least.

He sits comfortably in the top 10 hardcourt players of the Open Era (I won't say of all time, since hardcourts have been a relatively young surface on the tour, since the late 1970s approximately).

His records and results on the surface support my claim. So why are you all acting as if he can't play on the surface and is a hack on it?

Like.

When I compare Nadal with Fed and Djoker they say there are more than 3 players on the ATP tour but they are happy to compare him against the top 5 meaning they think there are only 5 players on the tour.
 
Last edited:

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Well, those h2h stats that you have listed don't tell us the whole picture.

How many of those matches were against Federer and Djokovic, 2 of the best hardcourters of all time? I know Nadal and Djokovic have played 21 matches on hard (more than on clay and grass).

How many of those matches were before 2008, before Rafa reached his hardcourt prime? How many after?

This is not to say that he's not substantially better on clay than on hard, but claiming that he's not a very good and competent hardcourt player is reaching to say the least.

He sits comfortably in the top 10 hardcourt players of the Open Era (I won't say of all time, since hardcourts have been a relatively young surface on the tour, since the late 1970s approximately).

His records and results on the surface support my claim. So why are you all acting as if he can't play on the surface and is a hack on it?

He has had few big success at hard amongst a sea of failures against the top 10
 

tennisfan87

Rookie
If these players spent most of their career playing on clay, what makes one believe that they wouldn't be more prone to injury ?

We don't know. Perhaps they could have a shorter career.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't know, but what we do know is that hardcourts are tough on the body, especially ankles and joints compared to clay and grass.

Anyways, I'm not saying we need more clay; if anything, we need more grass, but what I don't support is changing the already existing claycourt tournaments to more hard. That's ludicrous.

And that is exactly what Nadal is talking about here. I was only responding to the claim that he's lying when he says that more and more players are getting injured playing on hardcourts. He's right and I see many posters accusing him of lying and only looking after his interests.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
If these players spent most of their career playing on clay, what makes one believe that they wouldn't be more prone to injury ?

We don't know. Perhaps they could have a shorter career.

These injuries did not exist before the advent of h/c.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
A sea of failures on h/c. rofl

Nadal has won the North American series which neither Federer or Djokovic has managed to do.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
A sea of failures on h/c. rofl

Nadal has won the North American series which neither Federer or Djokovic has managed to do.

I covered the big wins already.

There is no denying his bad record on hard. No amount of sugar coating can help gloss over the facts
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
At his press conference he was asked whether he would return to BA next year. He said he didn't think so because it's being changed to h/c and that the ATP should protect clay because so many players get injured due to playing too much on h/c. Grass didn't come into it because grass courts are not being converted to h/c. He just answered a question.

Nobody is forcing any player to play like Nadal on HC. It is well known that Nadal's technique/style of movement puts way too much stress on his body, especially on a court like HC. There even was a scientific sports article which explicitly stated that Nadal was putting way too much G-Force on his body and which showed through a comparison to Federer that that must not be so.

If you play a defensive game on hard court, you have nobody to blame but yourself if you get injured as a result of your tactics.

Where have you been all this time? I mean really?

Safin (knee injuries), Hewitt (hip injury), Nalbandian (hip injury), Haas (shoulder injury), Davydenko (wrist problems), F. Gonzalez, Tsonga (knee injuries), Monfils (knee injuries), Del Potro (wrist problems), Nishikori (multiple injuries), Murray (back injury), Federer (back injury) etc. etc.

Are any of these players by any chance claycourt specialists?

Actually many of them are hardcourt specialists with attacking games. So where do their injuries come from?

First of all, arm/hand injuries have nothing to do with the surface.

Secondly, on which courts these players specialize doesn't say much about whether the court is responsible for their injuries (more likely not). That conjecture is illogical.
 

mightyrick

Legend
Maybe, maybe not. We don't know, but what we do know is that hardcourts are tough on the body, especially ankles and joints compared to clay and grass.

Anyways, I'm not saying we need more clay; if anything, we need more grass, but what I don't support is changing the already existing claycourt tournaments to more hard. That's ludicrous.

Absolutely, if they want to add grass back -- that's fine. Har-tru? Fine.

But anybody arguing that HC must be scientifically proven to be hard on the joints/hips/back is nothing but a flat-earther whose ideology is driven by their dislike for a particular player. You don't need a scientific study to prove that the sun is hot. This is that level of an argument.

Indoor soccer is much harsher on the joints/hips/back than outdoor soccer on pitch. Indoor volleyball is much harsher on the joints/hips/back than outdoor volleyball on sand. Hardcourt tennis is much harsher on the joints/hips/back than tennis on grass or clay.

The tour should be taken back to what it used to be. Grass, clay, har-tru. Recreational and up-and-coming players can do hardcourts... just like basketball.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
What sea of failures against the to 10?

H/C Nadal vs

Djokovic 7-14
Federer 9-6
Kei 3-0
Andy M 6-5
Raonic 4-0
Stan 7-1
Ferrer 4-4
Berdych 11-4
Cilic 1-1

That's 52 - 35 to Nadal
 

tennisfan87

Rookie
First of all, arm/hand injuries have nothing to do with the surface.

Secondly, on which courts these players specialize doesn't say much about whether the court is responsible for their injuries (more likely not). That conjecture is illogical.

How does it not? All of the aforementioned players are fastcourt specialists and as such have spent the majority of their careers playing on hardcourts.

Their success comes on hardcourts and therefore they have played most matches on hard, certainly not on clay or grass.

It is only logical that you're going to select tournaments (or your schedule) based on the surface you're most successful on.

The same way Nadal is not going to play Dubai, Rotterdam or Marseilles in February instead Rio or BA.

The same way Roddick used to skip almost the entire claycourt season so he could prepare for grass and hard.

The same way most of the american tennis players have skipped the claycourt season in the past.

Arm/hand injuries are only mentioned 3 times in my post. You're nitpicking here. What about the handful number of knee, back and hip injuries?
 
K

King Fed WW

Guest
What sea of failures against the to 10?

H/C Nadal vs

Djokovic 7-14
Federer 9-6
Kei 3-0
Andy M 6-5
Raonic 4-0
Stan 7-1
Ferrer 4-4
Berdych 11-4
Cilic 1-1

That's 52 - 35 to Nadal

It would be better to look at a record vs Top 10 opponents rather than the current top 10. No idea what it looks like but it would be a bettet way to look at it.

Then again, you are just a troll trolling, so I have wasted my time. You don't actually want to look at or discuss something. You just want to troll.
 

tennisfan87

Rookie
He has had few big success at hard amongst a sea of failures against the top 10

If what you're saying was the truth, then what does that say about players like Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Murray, Del Potro, Tsonga etc. etc. , basically everyone else except Federer and Djokovic?

Nadal is the 3rd best hardcourter of this generation, only behind Federer and Djokovic. Actually, what does that say about all of Roger's generation on hardcourts? You know the almighty and all talented ones like Safin and Nalbandian?

I think your term 'he had had few big success at hard amongst a sea of failures against the top 10' perfectly describes the players between 2004 - 2007, no?

Top 10 hardcourt players of the Open Era:

1. Federer

2. Sampras

3. Agassi/Djokovic

5. McEnroe, Lendl, Connors

8. Becker, Nadal, Edberg

I covered the big wins already.

There is no denying his bad record on hard. No amount of sugar coating can help gloss over the facts

Nice try buddy. I appreciate the efforts :lol:
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
It would be better to look at a record vs Top 10 opponents rather than the current top 10. No idea what it looks like but it would be a bettet way to look at it.

Then again, you are just a troll trolling, so I have wasted my time. You don't actually want to look at or discuss something. You just want to troll.
Provide the stats.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
If what you're saying was the truth, then what does that say about players like Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Murray, Del Potro, Tsonga etc. etc. , basically everyone else except Federer and Djokovic?

I have very high expectations of Rafa. If you are going to compare a 14 major champion with a 0 slammer like Tsonga, I think you are setting yourself too low.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
I said it before...Rafa was hurt last year AFTER playing predominantly clay.

AO final. Lost fairly early at IW and Miami. Played a full clay season.


I don't think his back injury can be blamed on HC.

Ironically wasn't hurt in 2013 when he had his career best performance on HC.

Going by patterns..remember when Rafa couldn't win the USO be a us he was tired? Well it sure wasn't Wimbledon wearing him out.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Nobody is forcing any player to play like Nadal on HC. It is well known that Nadal's technique/style of movement puts way too much stress on his body, especially on a court like HC. There even was a scientific sports article which explicitly stated that Nadal was putting way too much G-Force on his body and which showed through a comparison to Federer that that must not be so.

If you play a defensive game on hard court, you have nobody to blame but yourself if you get injured as a result of your tactics.



First of all, arm/hand injuries have nothing to do with the surface.

Secondly, on which courts these players specialize doesn't say much about whether the court is responsible for their injuries (more likely not). That conjecture is illogical.

Even if those guys solely played on HC, is it the surface or just overuse?
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
I said it before...Rafa was hurt last year AFTER playing predominantly clay.

AO final. Lost fairly early at IW and Miami. Played a full clay season.


I don't think his back injury can be blamed on HC.

Ironically wasn't hurt in 2013 when he had his career best performance on HC.

Going by patterns..remember when Rafa couldn't win the USO be a us he was tired? Well it sure wasn't Wimbledon wearing him out.

So what? Djoko won AO in 2008 and didn't win another slam let alone on h/c for 3 years.
 
Last edited:

mightyrick

Legend
Nobody is forcing any player to play like Nadal on HC. It is well known that Nadal's technique/style of movement puts way too much stress on his body, especially on a court like HC. There even was a scientific sports article which explicitly stated that Nadal was putting way too much G-Force on his body and which showed through a comparison to Federer that that must not be so.

I already posted a quote of Federer saying HC was hardest on the body. Federer himself has had back problems even though the guy is the most fluid and graceful player of all time.

The guy is purposely excluding HC venues from his schedule which demand more from his body. That should tell you something.

If you play a defensive game on hard court, you have nobody to blame but yourself if you get injured as a result of your tactics.

Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Roddick, Nishikori, Dent, S. Williams, Nishikori, Azarenka, Li... etc etc etc. These people are/were highly aggressive players. All of them have seen back and/or knee/leg injuries.

Can you please explain exactly why you think HC is not harder on the body than grass or clay?
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
And again, to the doubters, I say look back to Thomas Muster. He was told not to play too much on hardcourts after what happened in the early hours of 1 April 1989. It would hurt his knee and hip if he played too much on hardcourt. Clay was fine.

Hardcourt puts a lot more pressure on the joints.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Federer total matches played
Hard Court: 776 matches
Clay: 267 matches

Nadal total matches played
Hard Court: 447 matches
Clay: 369 matches


Federer played 329 more matches on HC than Nadal, but at the same time 102 less matches on clay.

If HC is more prone to injury than on clay, then Federer should be in a wheelchair while Nadal can play well in his 40s.

The reality is Nadal is more prone to injury than Federer is because clay takes a lot of toll on your body.
 

chicagodude

Hall of Fame
The reality is Nadal is more prone to injury than Federer is because clay takes a lot of toll on your body.

The reality is that Federer's style is much more fluid and less taxing on the body.
Plus, it wouldn't surprise me if Nadal actually spent quite a bit longer on the court per match.

Besides, it depends what you mean by taxing on the body.
Clay as a surface is easily less taxing on the body if spending the same amount of time playing. Clay does, however, often results in longer, grinding rallies and matches.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
What's tiredness got to do with the stress that hardcourt puts on the joints?

That's my point. Nobody was talking about injury with regards to Nadal and the USO before 2010, the prevailing view was that his physical style and the energy spent dominating the clay season and the FO then going deep into Wimbledon was why he was spent by summers end.

Last year he played predominantly clay and got hurt. Rafa is *always* fit for the clay season(when is the last time he missed a clay tournament for injury??), and then breaks down after.

Maybe the reality is, his physical style is not conducive to longevity no matter the surface
Especially when you want to grind and camp out 10 ft behind the baseline on HC for 5 hours. Or maybe all that grinding in clay isn't as gentle on him as he would believe seeing as runs down not long after clay season ends.

I get Rafa talking about preserving clay tournaments in the wake of BA going to HC. But if he was really serious about saving injury he should be asking for faster HC (shorter points, less grinding) with some fast grass thrown in.

we all know when he mentions player injuries he is talking about himself.

Frankly, few pro athletes in any sport play the game without injury at some point. Age is also a factor. But some guys are just injury prone. See Derek Rose and Greg Oden in the NBA.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
And again, to the doubters, I say look back to Thomas Muster. He was told not to play too much on hardcourts after what happened in the early hours of 1 April 1989. It would hurt his knee and hip if he played too much on hardcourt. Clay was fine.

Hardcourt puts a lot more pressure on the joints.

Seeing as he was a clay grinder..why would he okay that style on HC?
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal's style of play combined with his genetics probably guaranteed physical problems.

He never looks lean. It always looks to me as if he he is carrying an extra 5 to 8 pounds, which was not true when he was young.

So his weight does him no favors.

I don't see back problems being connected to surface, nor wrist injuries, but surely there is a connection between hard surfaces and knee problems, for example.

Billy Jean King talked about the difficulty of playing on grass at Wimbledon, because of the extreme knee bends.

The grinding of long clay matches should also be hard on the legs/knees, in a different way.

There seems to be NO hard evidence connecting injuries with surfaces - just a lot of conjecture.
 

crazyups

Professional
Nadal does have longevity by the way, he turned pro in 2001. So he has been on the tour for 14 years.
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
Nadal does have longevity by the way, he turned pro in 2001. So he has been on the tour for 14 years.

Nadal only started playing full time on the ATP in 2004. He played full-time on Futures/Challengers starting in 2002. So as a professional he's had 13+ years. Fed has been pro since 1998, so he has 16+ years.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
But shorter points always give less wear and tear. IMO they should get rid of SLOW HC, and make balls and surface faster on those fast HCs. A good replacement for slow HC would be har-tru, but definitely not artificial grass. :twisted:

Federer is showing great example, banning the slowest HC tournament in Miami. Everybody else should follow suit IMO.

But isn't that just another way of saying "playing less on HC is better for players' bodies"?

:lol:
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Nadal only started playing full time on the ATP in 2004. He played full-time on Futures/Challengers starting in 2002. So as a professional he's had 13+ years. Fed has been pro since 1998, so he has 16+ years.

Nadal started playing Satellite events in 2001, when he was 14, or rather trying to qualify for them. Nadal had already turned professional that early. This was rather a different approach to those who tended to play a lot of junior events at that age. Apart from 2002 Junior Wimbledon and 2002 Junior Davis Cup, Nadal played in adult events from age 14, whether at Satellite, Futures, Challenger or Top-level.
 
Nadal started playing Satellite events in 2001, when he was 14, or rather trying to qualify for them. Nadal had already turned professional that early. This was rather a different approach to most, who tended to play a lot of junior events at that age. Apart from 2002 Junior Wimbledon and 2002 Junior Davis Cup, Nadal played in adult events from age 14, whether at Satellite, Futures, Challenger or Top-level.

didnt he have a year off before his body "exploded"?
 
S

Sirius Black

Guest
didnt he have a year off before his body "exploded"?

A secret brofessor told me that Nadal spent that time in the church of iron, hence becoming the freakbeast we see today.

tumblr_n4cwjrPQh11t2oygso1_1280.jpg
 

britam25

Hall of Fame
Muster? Who had a career from 1984 to 1999?

Kuerten? Who had his initial bad hip injury at the 2001 US Open on hardcourt?

Borg? Who left because of tennis politics?

Vilas? Who had career matches at the top-level from 1968 to 1992?

Borg left because of politics? And, you know this how, exactly? Because that's the excuse he gave after McEnroe kicked his ass?

Kuerten? 2001 US Open? Funny, the following report constantly mentions, "injuries," plural, and doesn't say a single, solitary word about any injury in that tournament. You wouldn't be making **** up, now, would you?

No, perish the thought...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Kuerten
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Maybe we should make a calendar discussion thread to end all calendar discussion threads, except the title should be more neutral. For originality's sake.
 

oberyn

Professional
Borg left because of politics? And, you know this how, exactly? Because that's the excuse he gave after McEnroe kicked his ass?

Mustard can obviously speak for himself, but someone needs to point out the facts to you.

Yes, the politics of tennis at the time played a major role in Borg’s retirement. Numerous players have commented on this. I guess this reality just doesn’t make as compelling a narrative as does the notion that he was simply chased out of the game by McEnroe.

From a Sports Illustrated article on the subject in 1982:

Borg's presence in the qualifying—the subject of so much hue and cry among the game's image-mongers—was necessary because of his refusal to comply with Rule 8 in the 1982 Grand Prix guide. It states that a player must commit to playing a minimum of 10 tournaments a year, not counting the French Open, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, or be forced to qualify for all tournaments. Claiming he needed his "retirement" months and saying he desired more rest later—translation: time to perform in exhibitions from the Falkland Islands to Timbuktu at wages commensurate with whatever the designated countries' national debts will allow—Borg chose to enter seven tournaments and to petition the Men's International Professional Tennis Council to alter the rule. Forehand crosscourt. The MIPTC refused. Volley deep. Borg said fine, he would just as soon not go through the qualies at the French, which he has won only six times, and at Wimbledon, where he's only a five-time winner. Backhand pass. On the line.

Arthur Ashe, who's a member of the council and helped write the rule, last week agreed it was unfair. He said Borg had the ad. "It's one thing to say if a guy doesn't go the distance with 502 plate appearances, he doesn't qualify for the batting title," Ashe said. "This rule doesn't even let the guy come to bat."

Subsequently, Borg and his seconds pressed this point against the sport's ruling alphabet agencies—the International Tennis Federation (ITF) and the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) having joined the MIPTC in the fray—until last week, when Monte Carlo buzzed with the drone of tennis politicos searching for a compromise, their blazers and school ties and starch ludicrously out of place on the marble terraces overlooking magnificent Cap-Martin. Butch Buchholz, executive director of the ATP, huddled with Borg. Philippe Chatrier, president of the ITF, caucused with Buchholz. Sir Brian Burnett, chairman of the All England Club, jetted in for discussions with Borg, Chatrier and all the rest.

Would Wimbledon flout the Grand Prix rule and permit Borg to enter its draw straightaway? Would Borg break down and enter three more tournaments? (Significantly, by playing through the qualifying rounds of seven tournaments, Borg probably will wind up playing more—matches if not weeks—to play less.) Was all this nonsense?

Borg, standing on principle, wouldn't budge. "I am not helping them save face," he said.

By this time the sentiment of the touring players, who in a January straw vote had split 50-50 on the question of whether Borg should have to qualify for the majors, had dramatically shifted to his side. "The council treats Borg like they are his parents and he is a 5-year-old," Lendl said. "Bjorn is old enough to know what he should do."

Vilas—as always the poet—said, "The rules were not thinking about this guy, this great champion. Life rules itself; there is balance in life. But this.... We are so sick about this."
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
How does it not? All of the aforementioned players are fastcourt specialists and as such have spent the majority of their careers playing on hardcourts.

Their success comes on hardcourts and therefore they have played most matches on hard, certainly not on clay or grass.

It is only logical that you're going to select tournaments (or your schedule) based on the surface you're most successful on.

The same way Nadal is not going to play Dubai, Rotterdam or Marseilles in February instead Rio or BA.

The same way Roddick used to skip almost the entire claycourt season so he could prepare for grass and hard.

The same way most of the american tennis players have skipped the claycourt season in the past.

Arm/hand injuries are only mentioned 3 times in my post. You're nitpicking here. What about the handful number of knee, back and hip injuries?

Right. Let's ignore the much greater deciding factor: that they are different players, with different bodies that are injury prone to different extents and with different techniques which strain the body in different ways. You are making a conjecture without controlled variables. Your logic fails, as a player playing on hard court and getting injured does not necessarily mean that hard court is at fault. You have not shown the correlation.

I already posted a quote of Federer saying HC was hardest on the body. Federer himself has had back problems even though the guy is the most fluid and graceful player of all time.

The guy is purposely excluding HC venues from his schedule which demand more from his body. That should tell you something.



Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Roddick, Nishikori, Dent, S. Williams, Nishikori, Azarenka, Li... etc etc etc. These people are/were highly aggressive players. All of them have seen back and/or knee/leg injuries.

Can you please explain exactly why you think HC is not harder on the body than grass or clay?

Hard court is the hardest on the body ceteris paribus. yes. However, you ignore that how hard it is depends on how you play. Generally, it is easier to finish a point on hard court, so you need to exert less effort on the surface if you play aggressively. On clay, rallies remain long and strenuous since the court is slow and the bounce is high, which makes clay more exhausting and makes it equally hard on the body really. If you play the same style on hard and on clay, clay will be easier on the body, but that defeats the purpose of the surfaces and it shouldn't be done really. Nadal plays clay court tennis and he no longer can play without pain killers as a result. So easy on the body, no?

Both of you make it sound like hard court is a court full of spikes and whatnot in order to justify Rafa's stupid comment. Tennis players get injured and that's natural, as they are competing in a very physically taxing game. Don't make it sound like playing on clay is a stroll in the park; it is also hard on the body and there are many players who have gotten injured playing on it. Additionally, it is possible to severely injure your ankle on clay, which is much less likely on hard.
 

mightyrick

Legend
Hard court is the hardest on the body ceteris paribus. yes. However, you ignore that how hard it is depends on how you play. Generally, it is easier to finish a point on hard court, so you need to exert less effort on the surface if you play aggressively.

I have already pointed out numerous aggressive players -- who all excel (or have excelled) and prefer HC -- who have injuries. They are all aggressive. They all looked to finish points as quickly as possible. It still didn't prevent them from ending their careers early and severely limit their schedule just so they could deal with the HC season.

This is especially unreasonable when there are equivalent surfaces which are easier on the body and still provide the fast/low bounce characteristics. There are alternatives!


On clay, rallies remain long and strenuous since the court is slow and the bounce is high, which makes clay more exhausting and makes it equally hard on the body really. If you play the same style on hard and on clay, clay will be easier on the body, but that defeats the purpose of the surfaces and it shouldn't be done really. Nadal plays clay court tennis and he no longer can play without pain killers as a result. So easy on the body, no?

Both of you make it sound like hard court is a court full of spikes and whatnot in order to justify Rafa's stupid comment. Tennis players get injured and that's natural, as they are competing in a very physically taxing game. Don't make it sound like playing on clay is a stroll in the park; it is also hard on the body and there are many players who have gotten injured playing on it. Additionally, it is possible to severely injure your ankle on clay, which is much less likely on hard.

Sorry, but if you are still equating clay to HC, then your perspective is just an ideology driven by hatred for a particular player or love affair with another player. Your perspective has no basis in extending players careers, preventing player injury, encouraging diversity in playing style, and improving the overall quality in tennis.

Very sad indeed.
 
Top