Roger Federer is the #1 clay-courter in the world
- Thread starter Rhino
- Start date
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes. The rest of your post is doo-doo.
S
Serendipitous
Guest
^^^^^
Nice avatar!
Nice avatar!
icedevil0289
G.O.A.T.
drakulie hush. Blinkism is not a troll. I think you've had a bit too much to drink when celebrating fed's win.
tennisplaya
Rookie
Ofcourse hes the best on clay this year. With Nadals knee busted up at Madrid and Roland Garros, Federer has shown that hes the best of the rest without a doubt.
RoddickAce
Hall of Fame
Isn't that what people said last year when Nadal won Wimbledon...and Nadal was rated #1 on grass by a lot of people in that thread about the top 5 players on grass, hard and clay courts.
Rhino
Legend
I posted this thread because the clay-court season is (virtually) over.
We can't say who is the #1 grass-courter this year so far because it hasn't happened yet..... the first grass court matches just got underway today.
Let's see who is the best grass-courter this year after the Wimbledon final - it's not long to wait.
As for hard-courts. Yep, Nadal has it so far this year, although there are so many hard-court tournaments left that this will not be decided until the end of the year, or unless Nadal wins the US Open as well.
King of Aces
Banned
OK then we agree Nadal is the #1 hard court player this year.
Furthermore by your Logic Nadal was the GREATEST GRASS COURT PLAYER OF LAST YEAR>>>>>BETTER THAN EVEN ROGER FEDERER.
Say it !
cknobman
Legend
Nadal was better than Federer on grass, clay, and very close to Roger on hard in 2008.
Nadal was the clear #1 in 2008.
Very tall order to repeat.
Like I posted in a previous forum Nadal could very well no longer be #1 after Wimbledon, especially if his so called "knee injury" is real. Im not discrediting Nadal outright because it could in fact be real but my opinion(as well as some commentators) is that the withdrawl from Queens due to knee injury is more for time to regroup and heal the ego than it is because of a knee injury. Im mean Rafa's knees have been fine all year, so fine that he stopped wearing tape on them. There was no complaint of pain at all during the French (until of course he lost to Soderling).
King of Aces
Banned
Thats all Im saying. Nadal was the BEST GRASS COURT PLAYER, CLAY COURT PLAYER AND HARD COURT PLAYER OF 2008.
IN 2009 Nadal is so far the BEST HARD COURT PLAYER.
I agree. He has the best ranking on clay so far this year, by ATP points, and on that measure he is the best on clay this year.
I have no problem agreeing with that.
What is curious is a review of recent discussions involving the same topic.
As late as the end of 2008, the notion that the numer of points on any given surface had anything to do with how good a player was on that surface was widely considered preposterous.
For example, Nadal has been in the top 2-3 on both grass and hard courts for a number of years.
By the end of October 2008, he had clearly the best record on hard courts and grass for that year -- let alone clay. In fact, his margin on hard courts over Federer was much larger than the margin being discussed here for clay in 2009.
Yet the bulk of the discussions in some of those threads, was not whether he might be the best hard courter that year (God forbid!) but whether he even belonged in the top 5!!
See for example this thread, where some highly entertaining comments can be enjoyed for their unmatched absurdity.
http://tinyurl.com/m525xq
I have no problem agreeing with that.
What is curious is a review of recent discussions involving the same topic.
As late as the end of 2008, the notion that the numer of points on any given surface had anything to do with how good a player was on that surface was widely considered preposterous.
For example, Nadal has been in the top 2-3 on both grass and hard courts for a number of years.
By the end of October 2008, he had clearly the best record on hard courts and grass for that year -- let alone clay. In fact, his margin on hard courts over Federer was much larger than the margin being discussed here for clay in 2009.
Yet the bulk of the discussions in some of those threads, was not whether he might be the best hard courter that year (God forbid!) but whether he even belonged in the top 5!!
See for example this thread, where some highly entertaining comments can be enjoyed for their unmatched absurdity.
http://tinyurl.com/m525xq
I have to disagree, even though I prefer Fed to Nadal. Saying that Fed is the #1 clay courter is like saying the Nadal is the #1 grass courter. Each of them only have ONE win against each other in the past year on these courts. Fed leads Nadal in overall grass court wins (against EVERYONE) by a huge margin. Nadal leads Fed overall in clay court wins (against EVERYONE) by a huge margin. One loss does not drop you to 2nd place in both cases. When Fed has 4 GS wins against Nadal on clay, then Fed is #1 on clay. When Nadal has 4 wins against Fed on grass, then Nadal in #1 on grass.
Rhino
Legend
Well that makes sense. The best hardcourter discussion on any given year will immediately look to the US Open and the Australian Open to see who is the best. Nadal wasn't even in the final of either of those events in 2008, so of course people would pick from Federer or Djokovic.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Actually I don't think that Fed is number one claycourter this year because of points he accumulated on that surface but rather because he won FO.
FO is the main deal of clay season as far as I'm concerned,Fed winning Madrid is just an icing on the cake.
The reason that I didn't consider Nadal to be the best HC last year is because he didn't even reach finals at AO and USO let alone won either of them.
Rhino
Legend
Dude this is not about opinions. Federer has done better on clay this year than any other player. FACT! Nadal went out in the 4th round of the biggest clay court event this year. If he was the best claycourter this year he would've won it, or at least made the final.
And just to seal the deal, Federer has played Nadal once this year on clay - and beaten him.
There is no other logical conclusion to draw except that Federer is the #1 clay-courter of 2009.
What more proof do you need exactly?
+ 1,
Rafa didn't win a Slam, it's all about Slams. Olympics are fun, but they are no Slams. Djokovic had a strong case for being the best hardcourt player by winning IW, AO, and TMC. As well as winning the bronze medal at the olympics and making semifinals at the US Open
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
He is not and he will probably never be. He's an all-courter in the sense that he doesn't really have a weak surface but there's a difference between saying that and saying he's the best clay courter.
The current best clay courter has 5 Monte-Carlo titles, 5 Barcelona titles, 4 Rome titles and 4 RG titles.
Of course Fed is having his best season on clay this year thanks to winning RG but he won the RG title against an inexperienced finalist with no expertise (no prior title or even final) on clay. To me that will never be the same as winning it by beating the best player on the surface (as Rafa did in Wimbledon), far from it.
The current best clay courter has 5 Monte-Carlo titles, 5 Barcelona titles, 4 Rome titles and 4 RG titles.
Of course Fed is having his best season on clay this year thanks to winning RG but he won the RG title against an inexperienced finalist with no expertise (no prior title or even final) on clay. To me that will never be the same as winning it by beating the best player on the surface (as Rafa did in Wimbledon), far from it.
Did you realize you have "lowered" your level to a troll while spending too much time fighting with troll-ism on this board?
You need to wake up and be a tennis fan again, you are making the situation worse than better.
You can think that.. I think it doesn't matter who you play. Rafa is a far more achieved claycourter, but Roger had the better clayseason. Pretty much like Roger's the more achieved grasscourter
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Yes,he was consistent enough to reach 20 GS finals and others werent and are yet to be ( not that they never will be,just stating a fact) so he won.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
So judging from your post, Nadal isn't really a great clay courter being that his prime opponent on the surface isn't that great on clay to begin with.
Thanks!!! You're really smooth.
Rhino
Legend
I don't think you understand this thread. Read my original post for clarification. It is not "Roger is the best claycourter between 2005 and 2008". That would of course be Rafa. It is "Roger Federer is the #1 clay-courter in the world" IN 2009.
If Rafa is the best, then why did he lose to Roger during their only clay encounter this year? ...and why did he not even make the last eight of Roland Garros? Just asking.
You are being inconsistent with the very facts that you present as evidence in your first two posts on this thread, namely that Federer has the most ranking points on clay. If you don't think the numbers matter, but only performance in slams, then why take that angle on this thread?
I like the number counting because it *already* factors in the much heavier weight of slams vs master level tournaments, so the difference is already reflected.
Federer this year is ahead of Nadal on clay by 90 points.
Last year, as of October, Nadal was ahead of Federer by 815 points, which would be 1630 points today. That's 18 times greater than the 90-point margin you are presenting as evidence.
To sum, presenting the current (and very slight) lead by Federer in number of clay points as evidence of his being better on clay this year, while simultaneously dismissing the hugely larger lead by Nadal in hard court points last year, is not precisely a monument to coherent thinking. And I repeat, whatever their difference in slam performance, that difference is already factored in the points, with slams counting at least double the points of masters. If you are one of those who believe that points outside slams are irrelevant, then you should not present the total points as evidence of anything. Make up your mind.
Rhino
Legend
Look he has the most ranking points AND he won RG. BOTH are evidence, no?
This is a clear cut case. He is number one because of the points and because of the slam. This is not a Gaudio situation where tennis purists might say Coria was the best claycourter of 2004. I actually think the slam matters the most actually, but the ranking points are interesting because Federer has been gaining on Nadal on clay for the last two or three years point-wise, and now he has finally overtaken him. Hence this thread.
Great, so tell me, is he number one or did I miss-calculate?
Wtf?
In 2007 Roger earned 1625 points from the clay season.
In 2007 Nadal earned 2650 points from the clay season.
In 2008 Roger earned 1700 points from the clay season.
In 2008 Nadal earned 2305 points from the clay season.
The points AND the slam are the evidence. The difference is that the slam is subjective. It is OPINION as to whether it constitutes enough evidence. I wanted to provide the points to back up that opinion with facts because the two together are indefensible. All bases are covererd.
Yes actually I do dismiss that larger 2008 hard-court lead because it was FAR from a clear cut case when he didn't even get to the final of either hard-court slam. It's like is Safina the true number one right now. Some would say yes, some would say Serena. Here there is no confusion. Roger has the slam, Roger has the points.
You are right since it is better to lose in the final of Wimbledon (Federer last year) than lose in the 4th round of the French (Nadal this year). Also losing the finals of Wimbledon once to is enough to lose the mantle of best grass courter according to you even with around 5 times the career victories on the surface when it is to your beloved Rafa, but losing the 4th round of the French isnt enough to lose that present mantle with around 5 times the career victories on the surface when it is your beloved Rafa. Thanks again for your usual astounding logic. :lol:
Perhaps you can also return to your desperate promotion of Nadal as the best hard court player in the World for 2008 without even reaching a hard court slam final, alot of based on buffing up the significance of the Olympics which the ATP doesnt even award the same points as a Masters event, and which has a star role of champions in its very short history like Massu and Rosset, and medalists like Aresse, Cherkasov, Di Pasquale, Paes (singles not doubles), and Fish. That was amusing as well.
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
Another fact. nadal is the best clay courter ever(besides borg) and will be better than roger EVER will be. 9-2, 4-0.Nadal will always own Federer. *Waits for *******s * lol
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Originally Posted by Benhur
Last year, as of October, Nadal was ahead of Federer by 815 points, which would be 1630 points today. That's 18 times greater than the 90-point margin you are presenting as evidence.
The numbers in my post refer to hard court points as of Oct 2008.
And the point is that if a 90 point lead on clay this year is presented, by you, as evidence of better performance on clay (which it is) then surely a 1630 point lead on hard courts last year cannot be easily dismissed, it being 18 times larger than the one you present.
You keep bringing up the greater importance of the slams in the final counting. I've already mentioned that their much greater importance is already reflected in the ranking points allotted. If you think that's not enough, and points outside slams don't matter, then of course there is nothing to discuss. But in that case, all points from events other than slams should be taken out, and the rankings of all players rearranged accordingly every week of every year well into the beginning of the ranking systems. No exceptions. I do agree with your assessment that Federer's performance on clay is better this year - by 90 points (45 points last year). A very slim, but nontheless real difference. Had Nadal won Madrid, and everything else been the same, he would have been ahead by a few hundred points, and then I also would have thought the points reflected the difference in performance pretty well. On the other hand, with your system, you can win MC, Rome, Barcelona, Madrid and whatever else you wish to add. If someone else wins RG, he's first by default. That of course I consider utter bunkum. And that of course is a only a matter of opinion, like most everything else.
Last year, as of October, Nadal was ahead of Federer by 815 points, which would be 1630 points today. That's 18 times greater than the 90-point margin you are presenting as evidence.
The numbers in my post refer to hard court points as of Oct 2008.
And the point is that if a 90 point lead on clay this year is presented, by you, as evidence of better performance on clay (which it is) then surely a 1630 point lead on hard courts last year cannot be easily dismissed, it being 18 times larger than the one you present.
You keep bringing up the greater importance of the slams in the final counting. I've already mentioned that their much greater importance is already reflected in the ranking points allotted. If you think that's not enough, and points outside slams don't matter, then of course there is nothing to discuss. But in that case, all points from events other than slams should be taken out, and the rankings of all players rearranged accordingly every week of every year well into the beginning of the ranking systems. No exceptions. I do agree with your assessment that Federer's performance on clay is better this year - by 90 points (45 points last year). A very slim, but nontheless real difference. Had Nadal won Madrid, and everything else been the same, he would have been ahead by a few hundred points, and then I also would have thought the points reflected the difference in performance pretty well. On the other hand, with your system, you can win MC, Rome, Barcelona, Madrid and whatever else you wish to add. If someone else wins RG, he's first by default. That of course I consider utter bunkum. And that of course is a only a matter of opinion, like most everything else.
Rhino
Legend
^^^ look did you actually read my response? I said the points AND the slam are the evidence together.
Also, this is not "my system", it is the ATP's system.
And yes, if Rafa had won Madrid, etc, etc... but this is not about if's and but's is it?
I'm just saying that right now Roger Federer is the #1 clay-courter in the world due to the fact that he won Roland Garros and has the most points. How is that wrong?
Also, this is not "my system", it is the ATP's system.
And yes, if Rafa had won Madrid, etc, etc... but this is not about if's and but's is it?
I'm just saying that right now Roger Federer is the #1 clay-courter in the world due to the fact that he won Roland Garros and has the most points. How is that wrong?
It isn't. But that would mean, Nadal is the best grass and hard court player in the world right now, based on the results of the past year. After Wimby this may change.
zagor
Bionic Poster
That is true actually,Nadal holds AO and Wimbledon titles currently.Still for HC there's USO,Toronto,Cinncinati,Madrid,Paris and Masters Cup before the end of the year so that may change but at the moment Nadal is the best HC player in the world,no question-AO+IW,nobody comes close to matching those results on HC.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Well Nadal wasn't able to finish the clay court season as well as he started it. Kudos to Fed for taking full advantage of it. That shows he's a real champion.
Yes the slam is what matters the most. If consistency over the season is any indicator though, Nadal is still by far the most competent clay player: 4 finals is better than 2.
Yes the slam is what matters the most. If consistency over the season is any indicator though, Nadal is still by far the most competent clay player: 4 finals is better than 2.
Yeah that is an amazing feat considering he is "crippled".
No Drak I think what we should look at is the gall and travesty that Federer and Soderling had the nerve to beat a "crippled" player.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
That was an amazing feat period, especially since his Monte-Carlo title was his 5th consecutive, his Barcelona title his 5th consecutive as well and his Rome title his 4th.
Talking about feats, get back to me about the amazing Federer clay court prodigy when he scores his 4th RG title or if he ever wins a single Rome, Monte-Carlo or Barcelona title. Until then and with all due respect to Fed's talent, I 'm still more impressed by Nadal's clay court achievements.
JeMar
Legend
I think he's more comfortable with his 5 U.S. Opens, 5 Wimbledons, 3 Aussie Opens, and his new French Open.
As far as this year goes, the title probably has to go to Federer. I'm sure Nadal would trade in all those clay tournaments he's won this year for another French Open.
It is obvious that you gravitates towards dirt, err clay.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
This thread is about "#1 clay-courter in the world". No doubt Fed's overall resume is way ahead of Nadal's at this point, but as a clay-courter? Let's be serious.
JeMar
Legend
Well for this year so far, Roger has better clay court accomplishment than Rafa.
Tennis_Bum
Professional
Well, well, had Nadal won the FO this year, the ****s would not be bringing up other clay court results and would talk endlessly about how Fed would never win FO as long as Nadal is around. Well, guess what, Nadal entered the FO in great form after he said that the loss in Madrid didn't count as far as the scheme of FO. Look at what happened. Nadal lost in the 4th round to a guy he hated so much, granted Soderling hated Nadal just as much as Nadal hated him. But Nadal lost in the 4th round. Wow, the king of clay lost in the fourth round. I know I repeated that a few times already but I couldn't help it. Perhaps, Nadal isn't so great after all. All his "golden" retrieving didn't help him there? What happened? Was he injured? NO! Was he playing at high altitude? NO! Was he fatigue? NO!
Then what happened? Oh, I got it. The crowd didn't support poor Nadal when Soderling was beating the crap out of him. Damn those French crowd. Why didn't they support poor Nadal. I feel so bad for Nadal. Had the French crowd supported him, if he lost he would not use that as an excuse. Now, he's hiding from the press by not playing Queens and practicing really hard. I highly doubt that Nadal is injured at all. Nadal and his team is doing the PR again as usual. But I can be wrong.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Nope,not idiotic at all.This year Fed has best results on clay by far which makes him #1 for this year.Similar to that so far Nadal has best results on HC this year by far(AO+IW)so he's the best HC player for this year,atleast so far as there's also USO series to be played this year.
Add to that,Nadal was the best grasscourt player last year because he won Wimbledon.
Similar threads
