Rafael Nadal: Tennis must protect clay

Mustard

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

Borg beat McEnroe in an exhibition match in Sydney in 1982, winning 3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 6-2. McEnroe didn't win any of the majors or other big events in 1982, and was badly beaten by Lendl on a regular basis. In January 1983, Borg announced that he wasn't coming back to tennis full-time. It was being talked about during the Masters tournament, where Lendl beat McEnroe in the final.

Don't tell me that you seriously believe that myth of Borg leaving tennis for good right after losing to McEnroe in the 1981 US Open final?

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, I'm not making it up. Did you even watch the 2001 US Open and the events in the months following? If you did, you would know that Kuerten was injured during the tournament. Kuerten then went from being world number 1, the king of clay, the YEC champion, the Cincinnati champion, and the US Open favourite, to his results suddenly falling away completely, losing 11 out of his next 12 matches. Kuerten eventually needed hip surgery in February 2002.
 

britam25

Hall of Fame
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."

The arrogance needed to try and refer to somebody's actions as "facts" for their motives for running away like a coward, is considerable. The facts are, he got his *** kicked by McEnroe, didn't wait to congratulate Mac or take part in the award ceremonies(spare me the death threat concerns, if you're that worried, don't play at all)and, for all intents and purposes, quit, a few half assed returns nothwithstanding. Something tells me he wouldn't have found the ATP rules quite so vexing if he was still Number One. Do I know that for a "fact?" No, I don't, but neither do you, so, stop trying to pretend that you do.
 

britam25

Hall of Fame
Borg beat McEnroe in an exhibition match in Sydney in 1982, winning 3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 6-2. McEnroe didn't win any of the majors or other big events in 1982, and was badly beaten by Lendl on a regular basis. In January 1983, Borg announced that he wasn't coming back to tennis full-time. It was being talked about during the Masters tournament, where Lendl beat McEnroe in the final.

Don't tell me that you seriously believe that myth of Borg leaving tennis for good right after losing to McEnroe in the 1981 US Open final?



No, I'm not making it up. Did you even watch the 2001 US Open and the events in the months following? If you did, you would know that Kuerten was injured during the tournament. Kuerten then went from being world number 1, the king of clay, the YEC champion, the Cincinnati champion, and the US Open favourite, to his results suddenly falling away completely, losing 11 out of his next 12 matches. Kuerten eventually needed hip surgery in February 2002.

I watched the US Open in 2001, and long before then, but I generally avoided his matches-dull style, hideous sounds when hitting the ball-and nobody was talking up his chances. In any event, like I said, the link I posted mentions "injuries" NUMEROUS times, but not once for that tournament, or, for that matter 2001, so, IMO, you are completely and utterly, full of you-know-what.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
I watched the US Open in 2001, and long before then, but I generally avoided his matches-dull style, hideous sounds when hitting the ball-and nobody was talking up his chances. In any event, like I said, the link I posted mentions "injuries" NUMEROUS times, but not once for that tournament, or, for that matter 2001, so, IMO, you are completely and utterly, full of you-know-what.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/s...92978.html?scp=50&sq=Ana Ivanovic&st=cse&_r=0

From the May 2008 article:

The 31-year-old Kuerten has been bothered by a hip injury since 2001. Since having surgery in 2004, he has played in only 19 tournaments and won five matches.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/1835190.stm

From the February 2002 article:

Former world number one Gustavo Kuerten will miss at least three months of the season after confirming he will undergo a hip operation, according to reports in Rio de Janeiro.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/us_open_tennis/1529686.stm

From the September 2001 article:

Lacklustre Kuerten lost 11 consecutive games at one stage, and twice had treatment from the trainer for a groin injury.
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
Injuries are a reality in sports. There haven't been any alarming spikes in the injury rate on tour. Players aren't dropping like flies on any surface. So, it seems like the schedule is pretty balanced.

January - Hard courts, Australian Open
February - players have the option to play on hard or clay
March - IW & Miami
April/May - Clay, Roland Garros
June - Grass, Wimbledon
July - players can play on all three surfaces
August - December - hard courts

Players could play nearly half of their schedule on clay if they wanted. That seems reasonable to me.

I don't get this idea of the tour needing to "protect" clay, as if it is endangered. Is RG planning to switch surfaces? In any case, the tour didn't protect grass, so why should clay be any different? Grass was once the dominant surface and now it is one month - and would be gone completely if not for Wimbledon.

What, exactly, does Nadal want? I'm not clear on that.
 

Prabhanjan

Professional
The problem is with slowing down of the hard courts. The more you grind it out on the hards, the likelihood of getting injured gets accumulated. So, fasten up the HCs :)
 

britam25

Hall of Fame

Uh, did I miss the part where it said he sustained the injury at the US Open, as you claimed(just because he got treated for it during the match doesn't mean he sustained at the tournament)? No? Then, my previous comment stands. Get ready to see "shocking" losses and injury complaints coming from Nadal this year, too. And, I forgot to ask, in your earlier post, what in the world does Borg winning an exhibition match vs Mac have to do with him getting his *** kicked by him in tournaments that actually matter-you know, like SLAMS-and losing his top ranking? BRILLIANT argument, lol.
 
Last edited:
Why doesn't he say Tennis Must Protect Grass ? Grass is the most threatened and the most extinct. Grass is the first traditional surface and the most prestigious surface and not many tournaments are on grass compared to clay. Nadal showing double standards here. He only wants clay because it is the only surface he can play all of them annually and rack up massive points.

Wait till he say Wimbledon should be played on clay, as it is dangerous for the body to change from clay to grass.

Nadal is a disgrace to tennis. Egoistic clay maniac who only thinks about his benefits and does not care about the non clay players. Aren't there enough ATP1000 clay already ???? Seriously he is a spoiled momma's boy.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
I think Nadal is right. I would like to see clay court tournaments protected. I don't want to see more clay turned to HC. There are enough HC tournaments.

I would also like to see grass encouraged. There are more tournaments this year, but no 1000s. Grass play is actually discouraged each year due to lack of points on grass. There are two 1000s on clay before RG. It would be great to have two 1000s on grass before W.

If anything, there are two many tournaments on HCs.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Why doesn't he say Tennis Must Protect Grass ? Grass is the most threatened and the most extinct. Grass is the first traditional surface and the most prestigious surface and not many tournaments are on grass compared to clay. Nadal showing double standards here. He only wants clay because it is the only surface he can play all of them annually and rack up massive points.

Wait till he say Wimbledon should be played on clay, as it is dangerous for the body to change from clay to grass.

Nadal is a disgrace to tennis. Egoistic clay maniac who only thinks about his benefits and does not care about the non clay players. Aren't there enough ATP1000 clay already ???? Seriously he is a spoiled momma's boy.

To be fair, Federer wants all the courts sped up. :)
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
I think Nadal is right. I would like to see clay court tournaments protected. I don't want to see more clay turned to HC. There are enough HC tournaments.

I would also like to see grass encouraged. There are more tournaments this year, but no 1000s. Grass play is actually discouraged each year due to lack of points on grass. There are two 1000s on clay before RG. It would be great to have two 1000s on grass before W.

If anything, there are two many tournaments on HCs.

That is true. But as a top sportsman, he has the responsibility to make careful statements.

Did he mean both clay and grass are to be preserved ? Did he mean clay is to be preserved and I dont have an opinion on whether grass should be preserved ?
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
That is true. But as a top sportsman, he has the responsibility to make careful statements.

Did he mean both clay and grass are to be preserved ? Did he mean clay is to be preserved and I dont have an opinion on whether grass should be preserved ?
I would personally think he was talking about a tournament like Acapulco, which has changed to HC. This was one of his crucial steps back in 2013.

I look at it as simple human nature. If I were the best player on clay in the world, I'd be pushing to stop clay from being changed to HC. Seems logical.

Hopefully Fed is pushing for grass changes. To me that is the worst part of the ATP right now. It's the closest thing we still have to a true fast surface!
 

bullfan

Legend
That is true. But as a top sportsman, he has the responsibility to make careful statements.

Did he mean both clay and grass are to be preserved ? Did he mean clay is to be preserved and I dont have an opinion on whether grass should be preserved ?

The second clay court in S. America is changing next year. So 2 in 2 years are changing to HC. It seems the context of his comments have simply bypassed some folks.
 
Some tournaments just can not afford clay court maintenance. Nadal might as well just sponsors all those clay court tournaments to keep them going.

Meanwhile, Nadal's opinion that clay court is healthier for your body is just stupid. Monte Carlo had claimed rolled ankles beause there are some holes on the clay courts. With HC and shoes technology now you can slide and there is less chance of finding HOLES on the surface. Also, clay wears your body down with long rallies. Fast court is quicker, faster and has less boring long rallies.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Meanwhile, Nadal's opinion that clay court is healthier for your body is just stupid.

It is not stupid. Clay is far easier on the joints than hardcourt will ever be.

Also, clay wears your body down with long rallies. Fast court is quicker, faster and has less boring long rallies.

Clay provides the best rallies by a mile, and always has. And there's a difference between fatigue after long rallies on clay, and the bump and grind on a player's joints after a lot of play on hardcourts.
 
Last edited:
I'm just going to warn everybody now. This is the time that you'll see my bias because I'm damn sick and tired of Nadal complaining about the schedule of the tour. This has been going on for years, and it's getting worse the older he gets.
Nadal should feature in the BBC documentary "Grumpy Old Men".
 
The more fast hard courts the better. There will be new generations of S & V masters and young players are encouraged to learn more about tennis and not just about hitting mindless topspins.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
The more fast hard courts the better. There will be new generations of S & V masters and young players are encouraged to learn more about tennis and not just about hitting mindless topspins.

Clay is by far the best surface to learn about tennis. You have to construct points on clay, time after time, not just power your way to winning points. You have to rally, going through all the ups and downs in momentum associated with clay-court tennis.

Do we really want a 1994 Wimbledon final again, with about 80% of the points being aces, unreturnable serves, netted returns, or mishit returns, with second serves being almost as potent as first serves? There were barely any rallies more than 6 shots long.

Do we really want players getting their joints damaged by a ridiculous amount of tennis on hardcourts?
 
Last edited:

Squidward

Rookie
I agree, Clay And Grass should be protected. Enough hard courts already.

JMO, but the existing courts should be slowed down too. Speed tennis isn't as exciting for me.

Your mileage may vary...
 

dh003i

Legend
Clay is by far the best surface to learn about tennis. You have to construct points on clay, time after time, not just power your way to winning points. You have to rally, going through all the ups and downs in momentum associated with clay-court tennis.

Do we really want a 1994 Wimbledon final again, with about 80% of the points being aces, unreturnable serves, netted returns, or mishit returns, with second serves being almost as potent as first serves? There were barely any rallies more than 6 shots long.

Do we really want players getting their joints damaged by a ridiculous amount of tennis on hardcourts?

Ideally we want matches with all-courts tennis and plenty of variety in play. You're ignoring all of the fantastic S&V matches that have happened and fear-mongering because a few times there were ace-fests. There are also times when clay-court matches are uninspiring pushing.

Now to be fair to Nadal, he wasn't from that quote arguing for more clay-court tournaments, just that those already in existence not be converted to HC, although I'm not aware of many events being converted from clay to HC in recent times, or of many clay events disappearing.

What I would argue is that surfaces like Rebound Ace should be eliminated. What is bad is slow high-bouncing hard-courts like the AO is now, that keep players out there pounding on the pavement for 5.5 hours. If we want to reduce the wear and tear to players from hard-courts, we need faster hard-courts that don't encourage 30-shot rallies and 5-hour slugfests.
 

dh003i

Legend
Clay is by far the best surface to learn about tennis. You have to construct points on clay, time after time, not just power your way to winning points. You have to rally, going through all the ups and downs in momentum associated with clay-court tennis.

That would suggest that clay is a good surface to learn about point-construction on, but certainly not that it's a good surface to learn about S&V, slice shots, half-volleys, simply because those situations don't arise as frequently on clay.

Also, power tennis can be exciting shot-making, while clay court tennis can just become too boring, too much rallying, not enough shot-making.

That said, good clay-court tennis can of course be fantastic.
 

bullfan

Legend
Ideally we want matches with all-courts tennis and plenty of variety in play. You're ignoring all of the fantastic S&V matches that have happened and fear-mongering because a few times there were ace-fests. There are also times when clay-court matches are uninspiring pushing.

Now to be fair to Nadal, he wasn't from that quote arguing for more clay-court tournaments, just that those already in existence not be converted to HC, although I'm not aware of many events being converted from clay to HC in recent times, or of many clay events disappearing.

What I would argue is that surfaces like Rebound Ace should be eliminated. What is bad is slow high-bouncing hard-courts like the AO is now, that keep players out there pounding on the pavement for 5.5 hours. If we want to reduce the wear and tear to players from hard-courts, we need faster hard-courts that don't encourage 30-shot rallies and 5-hour slugfests.

Acapulco was clay last year, hard courts this year.
Rio was clay this year, will be hard courts next year.

That is what Nadal was referring to.
 

moonballs

Hall of Fame
Clay is by far the best surface to learn about tennis. You have to construct points on clay, time after time, not just power your way to winning points. You have to rally, going through all the ups and downs in momentum associated with clay-court tennis.

Do we really want a 1994 Wimbledon final again, with about 80% of the points being aces, unreturnable serves, netted returns, or mishit returns, with second serves being almost as potent as first serves? There were barely any rallies more than 6 shots long.

Do we really want players getting their joints damaged by a ridiculous amount of tennis on hardcourts?
. I agree clay is the best surface to teach tennis. It is also the only surface I would play on after i torn a meniscus. But it has nothing to do with what is the most entertaining surface for the pros to play on!

After Wimbledon was slowed down, you can be assured that the 1994 final won't be repeated in the foreseeable future. Instead we have too many grind fest like the final of AO2012. Even in 2013 US open we had some 50 shot points.

Gringfest is bad for tennis because (1) it is boring (2) it encourages PEDs. You cannot take something to improve your ball striking skills but you can take plenty of stuff so that you can run around all day like Nadal can or could.

In the faster era of sampras and Aggassi they played a lot on hard courts as the US has an unhealthy imbalance favoring hard courts. But none of the top US guys like Chang, sampras, Aggassi, Martin has joint problems. Later on the courts were slowed down. Grinding became rewarding. PEDS give you super human ability to grind out five set wins but unfortunately they also wear out the body.
 
Last edited:
Nadal is fighting the simple fact, that HCs are easier to built and maintain.

He is not winning this.

That would suggest that clay is a good surface to learn about point-construction on, but certainly not that it's a good surface to learn about S&V, slice shots, half-volleys, simply because those situations don't arise as frequently on clay.

Also, power tennis can be exciting shot-making, while clay court tennis can just become too boring, too much rallying, not enough shot-making.

That said, good clay-court tennis can of course be fantastic.

Mustard doesn't get it.

Never have. Never will.

Also, the point construction is not always the same. It depends on the surface and the conditions.

But for Mustard "point construction" is akin to running until you cannot hold your breath anymore. Nadal, the master of the running without an end, is forced to break the rules in order for this strategy to work.
 
Last edited:
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Mustard doesn't get it.

Never have. Never will.

Also, the point construction is not always the same. It depends on the surface and the conditions.

But for Mustard "point construction" is akin to running until you cannot hold your breath anymore. Nadal, the master of the running without an end, is forced to break the rules in order for this strategy to work.

His claims are highly dubious anyway. Given what we know about the most successful players in history and the paradigms they represent, there appears to rather be a bias for learning one's craft away from the clay courts. I wouldn't call it either way really, and it's largely situational—depending on the existing tour conditions, and such.


Highly dubious claims... as is the fundamental idea that "clay tennis produces the best level of tennis" (paraphrasing of something else Mustard has said).

It infers a hierarchy of court surfaces regarding a sort of "quality threshold" required to be successful there. More simply, honestly and fairly, different surfaces require different skill sets. That's all, really.

From a standpoint of physical health or the spectacle of tennis as it appeals to the masses, he may have a point.. but that's as far as it goes, and also contentious.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
My Spanish-Bull translating skills are a bit hazy but I think the correct translation is actually...

Tennis must protect the Nadal.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Clay is by far the best surface to learn about tennis. You have to construct points on clay, time after time, not just power your way to winning points. You have to rally, going through all the ups and downs in momentum associated with clay-court tennis.

Do we really want a 1994 Wimbledon final again, with about 80% of the points being aces, unreturnable serves, netted returns, or mishit returns, with second serves being almost as potent as first serves? There were barely any rallies more than 6 shots long.

Do we really want players getting their joints damaged by a ridiculous amount of tennis on hardcourts?

That is relative. Clay is best surface to learn CLAY skills. You can't learn fast court skills on clay.

If that was true, why were clay courters so poor in the 90s on fast surfaces?

You have a very limited outlook on things. And your bias is crazy. Like you don't need point construction and skills on faster surfaces.

You need different type of unique skills on faster courts. Plus you can win with both styles on all surfaces if you want lol. Soderling powered trough to 2 RG finals and yet you claim you can't do that. You can also use more baseline tennis on grass if you want. Sampras vs Agassi.

I mean you are very biased and see things too black and white here.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
That is relative. Clay is best surface to learn CLAY skills. You can't learn fast court skills on clay.

If that was true, why were clay courters so poor in the 90s on fast surfaces?

You have a very limited outlook on things. And your bias is crazy. Like you don't need point construction and skills on faster surfaces.

You need different type of unique skills on faster courts. Plus you can win with both styles on all surfaces if you want lol. Soderling powered trough to 2 RG finals and yet you claim you can't do that. You can also use more baseline tennis on grass if you want. Sampras vs Agassi.

I mean you are very biased and see things too black and white here.

Well I don't exactly agree with your wording, but... yes.

You have the power to save this forum with your unparalleled wisdom.

And to save tennis in the process.
 

m2nk2

Hall of Fame
I'm a bit confused, don't know exactly what you mean by this.

By protecting clay and grass tournaments you're saving tennis. Judging by current evolution of the tour, there will be 90-95% hard courts in 15-20 years, this is obviously not good for tennis. But it's much more profitable for tournament directors to choose hard court instead of clay or grass.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
By protecting clay and grass tournaments you're saving tennis. Judging by current evolution of the tour, there will be 90-95% hard courts in 15-20 years, this is obviously not good for tennis. But it's much more profitable for tournament directors to choose hard court instead of clay or grass.

Are you mad?

Because of one clay 250 outside of the traditional clay season you suggest that clay will be almost completely gone in 15 years?! Especially when the countries in which said clay tournaments take place play almost exclusively on clay??

Mind boggling stuff this.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
By protecting clay and grass tournaments you're saving tennis. Judging by current evolution of the tour, there will be 90-95% hard courts in 15-20 years, this is obviously not good for tennis. But it's much more profitable for tournament directors to choose hard court instead of clay or grass.

Well, short term maybe that's good to fill their pockets, but maybe long term people will get bored and stop watching tennis.

I guess, we can't know yet. We will see if tennis will still be popular with 95% of HC or eventually even 100%.

I doubt it will matter in the end. People will adapt. Basketball and soccer and baseball is also only one court and it's still very popular.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
That is relative. Clay is best surface to learn CLAY skills. You can't learn fast court skills on clay.

If that was true, why were clay courters so poor in the 90s on fast surfaces?

Becker was brought up on clay, for example. The fact that he ended up being better on other surfaces doesn't change the fact that he benefitted from growing up on clay.
 

dh003i

Legend
Bottom line is clay is the best surface on which to learn about how to play on clay, HC the best to learn about HC, grass the best to learn about grass.
 
Does someone know if the number of clay events has reduced in the last 20 years?

In 1995 there were total 32 ATP World Tour clay tournaments + 1 Roland Garros = 33.

In 2005 there were total 24 ATP World Tour clay tournaments + 1 Roland Garros = 25.

In 2015 there were total 21 ATP World Tour clay tournaments + 1 Roland Garros = 22.

You can see from 1995 to 2005, there had been a significant decrease in clay tournaments. However, in the last 10 years there was a slightly decrease in clay tournaments.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Bottom line is clay is the best surface on which to learn about how to play on clay, HC the best to learn about HC, grass the best to learn about grass.

Slightly oversimplified but you did call it the "bottom line", so for illustrative purposes I agree and you made yourself very clear, though it's not a hard rule, with there being a lot of interesting details.
 

dh003i

Legend
That's a bit over-simplified, in my opinion.

It is obviously correct. You don't learn how to play on clay by practicing on wood, or ice. And you don't learn how to play on grass by practicing on clay.

The difficulties Borg had transitioning from clay to grass are legendary and demonstrate this. Yes, he won 5 Wimbledons and completed the FO-W double 3 times, but if you watch the documentary about him, amateur players who he practiced against in preparation for Wimbledon said that you wouldn't think he was a professional tennis player those first few days. Stuff like even missing balls.

Movement on clay and grass, for one thing, is completely different.
 
Top