Top 4 - Ranking points breakdown in 2008

[Zaragoza]

AFTER MADRID (only countable tournaments for the rankings):

1-RAFAEL NADAL

Hardcourts 3020 pts.

USO- 450
AO- 450
Canada- 500
Miami- 350
Indian Wells- 225
Cincinnati- 225
Madrid- 225
Olympics- 400
Chennai- 120
Dubai- 75

Clay 2305 pts.

Roland Garros- 1000
Montecarlo- 500
Hamburg- 500
Rome- 5
Barcelona- 300

Grass 1225 pts.

Wimbledon- 1000
Queen´s- 225

2-ROGER FEDERER

Hardcourts 2205 pts.

USO- 1000
AO- 450
Madrid- 225
Indian Wells- 225
Miami- 125
Cincinnati- 75
Canada- 5
Olympics- 100
Dubai- 0

Clay 1700 pts.

Roland Garros- 700
Hamburg- 350
Montecarlo- 350
Rome- 125
Estoril- 175

Grass 925 pts.

Wimbledon- 700
Halle- 225

3- NOVAK DJOKOVIC

Hardcourts 2980 pts.

AO- 1000
USO- 450
Indian Wells- 500
Cincinnati- 350
Canada- 125
Madrid- 75
Miami- 5
Olympics- 205
Dubai- 135
Bangkok- 120
Marseille- 15

Clay 1400 pts.

Roland Garros- 450
Rome- 500
Montecarlo- 225
Hamburg- 225

Grass 190 pts.

Wimbledon- 35
Queen´s- 155

4-ANDY MURRAY

Hardcourts 2535 pts.

USO- 700
AO- 5
Madrid- 500
Cincinnati- 500
Canada- 225
Indian Wells- 75
Miami- 5
Doha- 250
Marseille- 200
Dubai- 75
*Olympics- 5 (don´t count)

Clay 260 pts.

Roland Garros- 75
Hamburg- 75
Montecarlo- 75
Rome- 35

Grass 250 pts.

Wimbledon- 250
*Queen´s- 55 (don´t count)



Ranking points and number of tournaments countable on each surface:

HARDCOURTS

Nadal 3020 (10)
Djokovic 2980 (11)
Murray 2535 (10)
Federer 2205 (9)

CLAY

Nadal 2305 (5)
Federer 1700 (5)
Djokovic 1400 (4)
Murray 260 (4)

GRASS

Nadal 1225 (2)
Federer 925 (2)
Murray 250 (1)
Djokovic 190 (2)


These are obviously the results of the top 4 players on every surface, not the top 4 players on every surface. Hopefully these stats will help some people to understand how pointless and absurd some threads are.
I think it´s necessary to differentiate between achievements and performances when we rate any player on any surface. For example, Nadal´s performance on hardcourts is overall the best (at this moment) but Djokovic´s and Federer´s achievements on hardcourts are greater this year (they won a Slam). Or Federer´s performance on clay was overall really good even though he didn´t win a big title and better than Djokovic´s but Djokovic achieved more than him on clay this year because he won in Rome.
Some people only consider the achievements and tend to overlook the performances. I think that´s wrong if you want to make a serious analysis of how good each player is. Both things should be considered.

 

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

So is Nadal the class of it now on hardcourts too? :shock:

 

[BallzofSkill]

What's really ironic is that it's good to debate if Nadal is indeed a good hardcourt player in light of his inability to reach the AO or USO finals. The unnecessary threads are the ones that have to do with Nadal's ass or ones created with anti-Federer sentiments like "Why does Murray own Federer". Very ironic thread though.

 

[Clay lover]

Nadal is consistently good, but not great at any moment on hardcourts.

 

[tennis-hero]

I think one point you should make also is defending points

Rafa gained nothing at RG, Roger lost nothing for making another RG final

Roger won the US open and got to the semis at the AO, Rafa made 2 semis but Rafa gained points on both slams, Roger lost points at the AO and gained nothing at the US

Rafa gained at Wimby, Rog lost points for making the final (he was defending)

Djokovic gained a huge chunk of points for the AO, but will have to defend them next year. Joker also lost points at wimby because he got knocked out early (historically by Safin)

Andy is the big winner, he didn't get much at the AO, but he peaked late this year. basically he can pick up points all year 09 and has to defend points at the US open

I expect Novak to lose points at the AO, i expect Andy to gain points there. Novak will make up points at wimby, expectations will be huge (again) on murray, i dont see him getting past Rafa or Roger

Roger next year will be looking to win the AO, i dont know about clay.... but by now no one is expecting him to beat Rafa at the FO. Wimbledon 09 could decide the dominant world number one, i think it could change hands, and if Roger takes wimbledon, he will close out the year as the dominant number one. i fully expect him to be fave at the US open

there is also the little matter of 14 and 15 slams which everyone will be expecting from Roger.

basically 2009 will be the most exciting year of tennis this decade, everyone is in form, except for clay we have an open field

 

[Zaragoza]

What's really ironic is that it's good to debate if Nadal is indeed a good hardcourt player in light of his inability to reach the AO or USO finals. The unnecessary threads are the ones that have to do with Nadal's ass or ones created with anti-Federer sentiments like "Why does Murray own Federer". Very ironic thread though.

It´s not good to debate if Nadal is indeed a good hardcourt player. I mean, it´s unnecessary because we all know he is very good. He is not Sampras on clay, that was a real weak surface for someone who was no.1 and achieved so much. That´s not the case with Nadal.
Nadal is a great hardcourt player. Everyone who wins 4 Masters Series and makes several finals, wins the Olympics on hardcourts (it was a big deal for the top players this year), makes the semifinals of both Slams on hardcourts and makes the semifinals or better in 10 consecutive major events on hardcourts (since Paris´07) is a great player on hardcourts, no doubt.
But this thread wasn´t about Nadal on hardcourts. It was an informative post about how good/consistent the top 4 are on different surfaces.
It helps to don´t lose perspective on the real results. The wishful thinkings and bandwagonning are not the real tennis.

 

[Zaragoza]

Nadal is consistently good, but not great at any moment on hardcourts.

Again, I don´t know why people focuse so much on Nadal´s performances on hardcourts. He has been from good to great on hardcourts so I don´t get why "he isn´t great at any moment". So much for the depth on hardcourts, how hard is to make semis or better in 10 consecutive major events?
Some people make a big deal when the likes of Baghdatis, Gonzalez or Tsonga make a good run, maybe one in a lifetime, but I find Nadal´s results on hardcourts much more impresive than those. If Nadal were just a good player on clay and grass he would be considered great on hardcourts.
Making a Slam final on hardcourts is not the line that separates good from great players when you see what Nadal achieved on hardcourts and when other players who made a Slam final or even won once did nothing worth mentioning in their careers besides of that.

 

[Zaragoza]

So is Nadal the class of it now on hardcourts too? :shock:

I don´t know, maybe you can ask the ATP to check their stats again.

 

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

I don´t know, maybe you can ask the ATP to check their stats again.

Touché, I will let you know what they say. Still have to admire your subtle way of putting it.

 

[miniRafa386]

I think one point you should make also is defending points

Rafa gained nothing at RG, Roger lost nothing for making another RG final

Roger won the US open and got to the semis at the AO, Rafa made 2 semis but Rafa gained points on both slams, Roger lost points at the AO and gained nothing at the US

Rafa gained at Wimby, Rog lost points for making the final (he was defending)

Djokovic gained a huge chunk of points for the AO, but will have to defend them next year. Joker also lost points at wimby because he got knocked out early (historically by Safin)

Andy is the big winner, he didn't get much at the AO, but he peaked late this year. basically he can pick up points all year 09 and has to defend points at the US open

I expect Novak to lose points at the AO, i expect Andy to gain points there. Novak will make up points at wimby, expectations will be huge (again) on murray, i dont see him getting past Rafa or Roger

Roger next year will be looking to win the AO, i dont know about clay.... but by now no one is expecting him to beat Rafa at the FO. Wimbledon 09 could decide the dominant world number one, i think it could change hands, and if Roger takes wimbledon, he will close out the year as the dominant number one. i fully expect him to be fave at the US open

there is also the little matter of 14 and 15 slams which everyone will be expecting from Roger.

basically 2009 will be the most exciting year of tennis this decade, everyone is in form, except for clay we have an open field

perfectly said, but if nadal continues to improve the way he has been from 2005-now, and federer picks up his 2006 game, i think next year and 2010 are going to be the days of our lives.

also, with murray, djok, del potro thrown into the mix, and a couple of players seeming to be coming on, like fish, monfils, simon, and others, i think that tennis is making its global comeback.

now all we need is a good american...

 

[joeri888]

I don´t know, maybe you can ask the ATP to check their stats again.

I think that Nadal's obviously by far the most consistent player of 2008, partly because of his great season, partly because of the 'poor' season played by Federer. For me, but that's personal, I still feel that that on hardcourts 'Federer is the class of it', because of achievement, and because when he's playing a good match, IMO he's still the best hardcourtplayer out there. Yet he's been the least performing of the 4, and has had a very very inconsistent season, apart from the clay season frankly. I just think his US Open victory was very impressive and believe the story of his illness at the AO.

On grass Nadal won more points, but could have been the other way around, Yet Nadal deserves the credit. Nadal was the best grass player of 2008, but isn't necessarily the best grass player in the world imo. I think that's pretty even between Federer and Nadal, and as the whole wimbledon tournament showed, their so close to each other, yet so far away from the rest of the pack on that surface. Clay is a well-known story. Nadal's owning everyone and a great player. I've got a lot of respect for the claycourt Nadal, but I would love him to be more agressive in other surfaces. Cut the standing 20 feet behind the baseline on first serve return and go for something. It might not win him more points, but it's something I'd love to watch.

 

[caulcano]

perfectly said, but if nadal continues to improve the way he has been from 2005-now, and federer picks up his 2006 game, i think next year and 2010 are going to be the days of our lives.

also, with murray, djok, del potro thrown into the mix, and a couple of players seeming to be coming on, like fish, monfils, simon, and others, i think that tennis is making its global comeback.

now all we need is a good american...

Nadal can improve but I get a feeling that he is very close to his 'peak'. As for Federer, I think he has already peaked but is very much capable of winning more slams in the next few years. Illness has made Federer more vulnerable in 2008 but I expect his age will slowly affect him in the coming years. Gone are the 3 GS per year that Federer achieved.

 

[Benhur]

AFTER MADRID (only countable tournaments for the rankings):

Ranking points and number of tournaments countable on each surface:

HARDCOURTS

Nadal 3020 (10)
Djokovic 2980 (11)
Murray 2535 (10)
Federer 2205 (9)

CLAY

Nadal 2305 (5)
Federer 1700 (5)
Djokovic 1400 (4)
Murray 260 (4)

GRASS

Nadal 1225 (2)
Federer 925 (2)
Murray 250 (1)
Djokovic 190 (2)


These are obviously the results of the top 4 players on every surface, not the top 4 players on each surface. Hopefully these stats will help some people to understand how pointless and absurd some threads are.
I think it´s necessary to differentiate between achievements and performances when we rate any player on any surface. For example, Nadal´s performance on hardcourts is overall the best (at this moment) but Djokovic´s and Federer´s achievements on hardcourts are greater this year (they won a Slam). Or Federer´s performance on clay was overall really good even though he didn´t win a big title and better than Djokovic´s but Djokovic achieved more than him on clay this year because he won in Rome.
Some people only consider the achievements and tend to overlook the performances. I think that´s wrong if you want to make a serious analysis of how good each player is. Both things should be considered.

Your distinction between performance and achievement is spot on and helps clear up a lot of misunderstanding on these discussion threads regarding all kinds of comparisons. For example, Sampras achievements can be said to be better than Federer's, yet Federer's performance during his 4 years at the top is far, far better (in fact the best ever). Lendl's performance during his years as number 1 is also significantly better than Sampras. Ranking systems attempt to measure a combination of both achievement and performance, by giving much more weight to slams. A system that attempted to measure only achievement would have to pretty much ignore everything outside slams. A quick way to check performance is to look at match winning percentage.

 

[joeri888]

Your distinction between performance and achievement is spot on and helps clear up a lot of misunderstanding on these discussion threads regarding all kinds of comparisons. For example, Sampras achievements can be said to be better than Federer's, yet Federer's performance during his 4 years at the top is far, far better (in fact the best ever). Lendl's performance during his years as number 1 is also significantly better than Sampras. Ranking systems attempt to measure a combination of both achievement and performance, by giving much more weight to slams. A system that attempted to measure only achievement would have to pretty much ignore everything outside slams. A quick way to check performance is to look at match winning percentage.

I don't really think Zaragoza was trying to tell us something in favour of Federer

 

[Zaragoza]

I don't really think Zaragoza was trying to tell us something in favour of Federer

From my OP:

For example, Nadal´s performance on hardcourts is overall the best (at this moment) but Djokovic´s and Federer´s achievements on hardcourts are greater this year (they won a Slam). Or Federer´s performance on clay was overall really good even though he didn´t win a big title and better than Djokovic´s but Djokovic achieved more than him on clay this year because he won in Rome.

What did you say?

 

[Tennisfans1]

Basically all this thread pretty much says the top 4 guys are as dominant as ever go figure

 

[Zaragoza]

I've got a lot of respect for the claycourt Nadal, but I would love him to be more agressive in other surfaces. Cut the standing 20 feet behind the baseline on first serve return and go for something. It might not win him more points, but it's something I'd love to watch.

And why do you think he won Wimbledon and had his best year ever on hardcourts being the most consistent player on hardcourts as well? Not playing clay court tennis and being a defensive player for sure. It´s plain obvious that Nadal started playing more aggressive tennis in 2007. His improvements on the serve and the backhand allowed him to do it. He dominates the rallies in most of his matches on every surface. He´s usually the one dictating play from the baseline. Of course there are certain players like Blake and Gulbis who play "all or nothing" tennis so they will make a lot of errors but that´s not Nadal´s fault. And when the other player is on serve Nadal will obviously start the point from a defensive position. There are also some matches where you see that Nadal is rusty or tired (the schedule is crazy this year) so he relies on his defense more than usual. But the new Nadal plays more aggressive, goes for his shots and that´s why he makes many more unforced errors than in the past. His game has evolved, that´s why he is the no.1.

 

[Safinator_1]

perfectly said, but if nadal continues to improve the way he has been from 2005-now, and federer picks up his 2006 game, i think next year and 2010 are going to be the days of our lives.

also, with murray, djok, del potro thrown into the mix, and a couple of players seeming to be coming on, like fish, monfils, simon, and others, i think that tennis is making its global comeback.

now all we need is a good american...

Yes... an american how could i forget got any in mind?

 

[Lobber]

IMHO, I think it is right that Nadal's hardcourt abilities are questioned.

There is no doubt in my mind that he is rightly the year end #1 after a fantastic season, but when you look into his hard court results this year, one thing stands out. Nadal has only beaten one top 8 player on a hard court this year (Djokovic - Olympics) and I think that tells its own story.

Nadal is definitely a good hardcourt player, but I don't think he could be classed as top 5 or even top 10 on hardcourts.

So unless he changes his game (which would be a mistake), or he gets a lucky draw in a hardcourt Slam, I can't see him winning the AO or USO.

 

[Lobber]

Excellent thread by the way Zaragoza, it was really great to see the points broken down like that.

 

[Zaragoza]

Nadal is definitely a good hardcourt player, but I don't think he could be classed as top 5 or even top 10 on hardcourts.

Hilarious. Please check the OP again.

 

[Zaragoza]

Excellent thread by the way Zaragoza, it was really great to see the points broken down like that.

Thank you.

 

[caulcano]

And why do you think he won Wimbledon and had his best year ever on hardcourts being the most consistent player on hardcourts as well? Not playing clay court tennis and being a defensive player for sure. It´s plain obvious that Nadal started playing more aggressive tennis in 2007. His improvements on the serve and the backhand allowed him to do it. He dominates the rallies in most of his matches on every surface. He´s usually the one dictating play from the baseline. Of course there are certain players like Blake and Gulbis who play "all or nothing" tennis so they will make a lot of errors but that´s not Nadal´s fault. And when the other player is on serve Nadal will obviously start the point from a defensive position. There are also some matches where you see that Nadal is rusty or tired (the schedule is crazy this year) so he relies on his defense more than usual. But the new Nadal plays more aggressive, goes for his shots and that´s why he makes many more unforced errors than in the past. His game has evolved, that´s why he is the no.1.

Overall Nadal has played best overall on all surfaces (no significant early round losses in 2008). I think his BH has always been great and there is always room for improvement in his serve.

However, I disagree with you in that he usually dictates play. Obviously against lowly ranked players he does but generally he doesn't.

I also feel that IT IS because of Nadal that his opponents make a lot more UE. They need to end the point early (take more risky shots) otherwise Nadal will eventually take hold of the rally and then start dominating.

 

[Zaragoza]

I also feel that IT IS because of Nadal that his opponents make a lot more UE. They need to end the point early (take more risky shots) otherwise Nadal will eventually take hold of the rally and then start dominating.

Yes and when you make your opponents play differently you´re also dictating play. We disagree on the other part. Nadal had the slight edge from the baseline against Federer and Murray (not slight) at Wimbledon, against Djokovic and Roddick at Queen´s, against Murray in Toronto, in some moments of his matches against Blake this year...of course it´s harder to dictate play against the top players but Nadal can also do it and he can do it in the big stage.

 

[Lobber]

Hilarious. Please check the OP again.

Hmm, well I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you honestly believe that a player who has been beaten by Simon, Murray, Davydenko, Djokovic (twice), Roddick, Tsonga, Seppi and Youznhy on hardcourts this year and has only beaten a top 8 player once on hardcourts could be classed as Top 5 on that surface.

 

[Zaragoza]

Hmm, well I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you honestly believe that a player who has been beaten by Simon, Murray, Davydenko, Djokovic (twice), Roddick, Tsonga, Seppi and Youznhy on hardcourts this year and has only beaten a top 8 player once on hardcourts could be classed as Top 5 on that surface.

What do you prove with that? I am talking about the overall performance and results this year (semifinal, final or title on every big hardcourt event this year and more ranking points on hardcourts than anyone). Do you want to post the players Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Roddick, Davydenko...lost to on hardcourts this year and in what rounds did they lose or aren´t you interested? It looks like you have been living on a different planet this year. It´s very simple. When you are in the semifinals of every hardcourt tournament that matters and you earn more ranking points on hardcourts than any player it´s not even a debate if you are a top 5 on the surface. There is not a clear best player on hardcourts but there are 4 players who are above the rest on hardcourts.

 

[Lobber]

There is not a clear best player on hardcourts but there are 4 players who are above the rest on hardcourts.

That's right, and Nadal isn't one of them.

 

[tennisdad65]

That's right, and Nadal isn't one of them.

So the stats over 10 tournaments mean nothing to you?
Getting to the Semi's at AO and USO does not put him in the top 4?

 

[zagor]

That's right, and Nadal isn't one of them.

Then who would you put as the best HC player this year alone with Fed,Djoko or Murray? Tsonga(as much as I like his game)didn't do much on HC apart from his great run at AO,he might have if he didn't have injuries but that's speculation.Kolja won Miami(beating Nadal in the final) but his results at HC slams this year 2 4th rounds.Roddick wasn't that great on HC this year either,winning only Dubai if I'm not mistaken.

No,Nadal is at the very least 4th best on HC this year,he was overall most consistant troughout the whole year on HC and won Toronto and Olympics.

And why do you think he won Wimbledon and had his best year ever on hardcourts being the most consistent player on hardcourts as well? Not playing clay court tennis and being a defensive player for sure. It´s plain obvious that Nadal started playing more aggressive tennis in 2007. His improvements on the serve and the backhand allowed him to do it. He dominates the rallies in most of his matches on every surface. He´s usually the one dictating play from the baseline. Of course there are certain players like Blake and Gulbis who play "all or nothing" tennis so they will make a lot of errors but that´s not Nadal´s fault. And when the other player is on serve Nadal will obviously start the point from a defensive position. There are also some matches where you see that Nadal is rusty or tired (the schedule is crazy this year) so he relies on his defense more than usual. But the new Nadal plays more aggressive, goes for his shots and that´s why he makes many more unforced errors than in the past. His game has evolved, that´s why he is the no.1.

I agree that Nadal has been more agressive off ground this year and that he improved his serve and BH.However I think that his defense and passing shots are still the best part of his game and I disagree that Nadal dictates play on every surface,on clay and grass mostly yes but on HC I've seen him get overly defensive quite a few times this year which cost him the match in the end(and no I don't feel he was tired against either Tsonga or Kolja for example,those were big matches where I feel Nadal didn't change his gameplan and tried to adapt enough).Even though he did have very good results on HC this year it is still evident(atleast to me)that he was overall more agressive at Wimbledon and FO this year than on HC.

But I do find it funny that you get a little defensive when you feel that people are not giving Nadal's game enough credit and still refer to him as just a great defensive player(when it is obvious that he improved his offensive game quite a lot and is more agressive than before) and yet you recently almost described Federer as a brainless Blake-type basher(you said he always goes for winners and if it works he wins and if not he loses)completely overlooking the fact that big part of Fed's success over all this years was his defense,movement,anticipation,variety and point construction not just his serve,talent and shotmaking(it was mostly his defense that won him matches against Joker and Andreev at USO this year for example).

You criticize people for oversimplifying Nadal's game and while I agree with that you on the other hand did the same to Federer.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

NADAL IS GOAT.


there i said it... are you happy now Zaragoza? will you now let people post here without eventually trying to dominate the thread and dictate laws of what should or shouldnt be said?

 

[Benhur]

Hmm, well I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you honestly believe that a player who has been beaten by Simon, Murray, Davydenko, Djokovic (twice), Roddick, Tsonga, Seppi and Youznhy on hardcourts this year and has only beaten a top 8 player once on hardcourts could be classed as Top 5 on that surface.

That's a curious method of excluding someone from the top 5 on hardcourts.

This is the list of players the hard court greats lost to:

Federer on hard courts lost to:
Djokovic, Murray (twice), Fish, Roddick, Simon, Karlovic and Blake

Djokovic on hard courts lost to:
Davydenko, Simon, Roddick, Anderson, Murray (twice), Nadal, Federer, Tsonga, Karlovic

Murray on hard courts lost to:
Tsonga, Haas (twice) Davydenko, Ancic, Nadal, Yen Hsu, Federer

Roddick on hard courts lost to:
Kohlschreiber, Soderling, Haas, Davydenko, Cilic, Del Potro, Troicki, Djokovic, Berdych, Monfils

Blake on hard courts lost to:
Santoro, Federer, Nishikori, Ginepri, Nadal (twice), Tursunov, Kiefer, Gulbis, Gonzalez, Fish, Simon

Clearly, by your method, no player belongs in the top 5 on hard courts in 2008. The category doesn't exist. It's empty.

 

[Lobber]

That's a curious method of excluding someone from the top 5 on hardcourts.

This is the list of players the hard court greats lost to:

Federer
Djokovic
Murray
Roddick
Blake

Clearly, by your method, no player belongs in the top 5 on hard courts in 2008. The category doesn't exist. It's empty.

My original point was that I didn't feel Nadal could be considered a top 5 hardcourt player because he had only beaten one top 8 player on the surface this year.

Thanks Benhur for helping me out by listing 5 players all of whom have beaten at least 2 top 8 players on hardcourts in 2008. Must be easy to do for the hard court greats

 

[Benhur]

My original point was that I didn't feel Nadal could be considered a top 5 hardcourt player because he had only beaten one top 8 player on the surface this year.

Thanks Benhur for helping me out by listing 5 players all of whom have beaten at least 2 top 8 players on hardcourts in 2008. Must be easy to do for the hard court greats

That was not your original point at all. Your original point was a list of players to whom he lost, plus an arbitrary selection of the number 8 and an arbitrary selection of the number 2, to suit your imbecilic definition of what constitutes a top 5 player on a given surface.

Nadal beat a top 10 on hard courts 5 times in 2008. Why didn't you choose 10 and 5 instead of 8 and 2 for your silly new requirements.

I could make an impromtu rule that losing to a player outside the top 60, as Murray did, or outside the top 90, as Djokovic and Federer did, disqualifies you from being in he top 5.

But I won't because I am not ********.

In the meantime, I will continue to hold the preposterous belief that if a player has the top ranking on a given surface by ATP points won on that surface, he must be at least in the top 5 on that surface. And in the meantime you can continue to believe in the tooth fary.

 

[joeri888]

And why do you think he won Wimbledon and had his best year ever on hardcourts being the most consistent player on hardcourts as well? Not playing clay court tennis and being a defensive player for sure. It´s plain obvious that Nadal started playing more aggressive tennis in 2007. His improvements on the serve and the backhand allowed him to do it. He dominates the rallies in most of his matches on every surface. He´s usually the one dictating play from the baseline. Of course there are certain players like Blake and Gulbis who play "all or nothing" tennis so they will make a lot of errors but that´s not Nadal´s fault. And when the other player is on serve Nadal will obviously start the point from a defensive position. There are also some matches where you see that Nadal is rusty or tired (the schedule is crazy this year) so he relies on his defense more than usual. But the new Nadal plays more aggressive, goes for his shots and that´s why he makes many more unforced errors than in the past. His game has evolved, that´s why he is the no.1.

Yeah, of course he's more impressive than he used to be, because he's an incredible player. I don't say it's smart to be even more offensive and agressive but I'd love to see him play S&V every first serve cause I don't care for his results and love players to take on the return immediately and play a lot of volleys. That's just the style I like and it's a shame Rafa's never gonna be that guy for me. Nadal will always start the point defensively on player's first serve and I can completely understand it and you don't have to defend him for that It's just not the type of tennis I love. I'd love him to stand ON the baseline and go for the returnwinner every now and again

 

[ksbh]

LOL! Outstanding.

I'd be interested to see how Lobber wriggles out of this one.

That's a curious method of excluding someone from the top 5 on hardcourts.

This is the list of players the hard court greats lost to:

Federer on hard courts lost to:
Djokovic, Murray (twice), Fish, Roddick, Simon, Karlovic and Blake

Djokovic on hard courts lost to:
Davydenko, Simon, Roddick, Anderson, Murray (twice), Nadal, Federer, Tsonga, Karlovic

Murray on hard courts lost to:
Tsonga, Haas (twice) Davydenko, Ancic, Nadal, Yen Hsu, Federer

Roddick on hard courts lost to:
Kohlschreiber, Soderling, Haas, Davydenko, Cilic, Del Potro, Troicki, Djokovic, Berdych, Monfils

Blake on hard courts lost to:
Santoro, Federer, Nishikori, Ginepri, Nadal (twice), Tursunov, Kiefer, Gulbis, Gonzalez, Fish, Simon

Clearly, by your method, no player belongs in the top 5 on hard courts in 2008. The category doesn't exist. It's empty.

 

[Zaragoza]

NADAL IS GOAT.


there i said it... are you happy now Zaragoza? will you now let people post here without eventually trying to dominate the thread and dictate laws of what should or shouldnt be said?

I know you´re not being honest, isn´t Safin the GOAT?
There´s some work I did on this thread so I´m legitimated to post as much as I want especially if someone insists that Nadal is not a top 5 on hardcourts even though all the stats prove the opposite. And you´re the last one who should tell others how to behave on this forum.

 

[Zaragoza]

But I do find it funny that you get a little defensive when you feel that people are not giving Nadal's game enough credit and still refer to him as just a great defensive player(when it is obvious that he improved his offensive game quite a lot and is more agressive than before) and yet you recently almost described Federer as a brainless Blake-type basher(you said he always goes for winners and if it works he wins and if not he loses)completely overlooking the fact that big part of Fed's success over all this years was his defense,movement,anticipation,variety and point construction not just his serve,talent and shotmaking(it was mostly his defense that won him matches against Joker and Andreev at USO this year for example).

You criticize people for oversimplifying Nadal's game and while I agree with that you on the other hand did the same to Federer.

It´s obvious that you didn´t understand my point on that post about Federer. You are taking things out of context. I think I was clear, you can copy and paste the whole post if you want. I can guarantee that I never said something as ridiculous as "Nadal is not a top 5 on hardcourts", so no, I didn´t do the same.

 

[zagor]

It´s obvious that you didn´t understand my post on that thread about Federer. You are taking things out of context. I think I was clear, you can copy and paste the whole post if you want. I can guarantee that I never said something as ridiculous as "Nadal is not a top 5 on hardcourts", so no, I didn´t do the same.

Of course you never said something on the same level as "Nadal is not a top 5 on HC when he won overall most points on that surface" and I never expect you to but I still feel that you underestimated Fed's game in that post,maybe I misunderstood,if I did then fine.

Federer always goes for the winners with his serve and forehand and if it works he wins the match.

This is the part of that post with which I disagree the most.You just described Blake or Tursunov there,they're the guys that always go for winners and if they're hot that day it works and if not they beat themselves making tons and tons of errors.

Fed isn't the type of player that just swings for the fences.He made 18 consecutive slam semis,that shows amazing consistancy and no way would that be possible if he played that type of high-risk game going for winners all the time.He constructs points and is a very versatile and complete player,I think you overlook how much Fed relies on defense to win matches sometimes(especially if his strokes are somewhat off that day so he can't rely solely on his shotmaking to pull him trough).When he plays big hitters like Berdych,Sodderling,Safin etc. a lot of the times he draws errors by his anticipation and defense and makes them beat themselves instead of just blasting winners past them.

But again maybe I misunderstood and sorry for going off topic a little but IMO that's bound to happen to this thread sooner or later anyway.

 

[Benhur]

That was not your original point at all. Your original point was a list of players to whom he lost, plus an arbitrary selection of the number 8 and an arbitrary selection of the number 2, to suit your imbecilic definition of what constitutes a top 5 player on a given surface.

Nadal beat a top 10 on hard courts 5 times in 2008. Why didn't you choose 10 and 5 instead of 8 and 2 for your silly new requirements.

I could make an impromtu rule that losing to a player outside the top 60, as Murray did, or outside the top 90, as Djokovic and Federer did, disqualifies you from being in he top 5.

But I won't because I am not ********.

In the meantime, I will continue to hold the preposterous belief that if a player has the top ranking on a given surface by ATP points won on that surface, he must be at least in the top 5 on that surface. And in the meantime you can continue to believe in the tooth fary.

Update. I just had a chat with the tooth fairy and she told me what the new requirement is to be a top 5 on a given surface. She said you have to beat a player in the top 10 at least 5 times. The only ones who did it were Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. So we have only 3 players in the top 5 on hard courts. The missing two are tooth gaps.

Then the molar fairy came and told me that the above rule was already obsolete. She said in order to be a top 5 player on a given surface you have to beat a top 10 player at least 6 times. Only Djokovic did that. So only one player is in the top 5 now. That's better than none.

I will keep you posted on new rules as they come to me.

 

[anointedone]

I know you´re not being honest, isn´t Safin the GOAT?
There´s some work I did on this thread so I´m legitimated to post as much as I want especially if someone insists that Nadal is not a top 5 on hardcourts even though all the stats prove the opposite. And you´re the last one who should tell others how to behave on this forum.

Great stuff. I love how you never back down to the trolls on this forum and always stick to your arguments, which are extremely well reasoned and well thought out always.

 

[Zaragoza]

Of course you never said something on the same level as "Nadal is not a top 5 on HC when he won overall most points on that surface" and I never expect you to but I still feel that you underestimated Fed's game in that post,maybe I misunderstood,if I did then fine.



This is the part of that post with which I disagree the most.You just described Blake or Tursunov there,they're the guys that always go for winners and if they're hot that day it works and if not they beat themselves making tons and tons of errors.

Fed isn't the type of player that just swings for the fences.He made 18 consecutive slam semis,that shows amazing consistancy and no way would that be possible if he played that type of high-risk game going for winners all the time.He constructs points and is a very versatile and complete player,I think you overlook how much Fed relies on defense to win matches sometimes(especially if his strokes are somewhat off that day so he can't rely solely on his shotmaking to pull him trough).When he plays big hitters like Berdych,Sodderling,Safin etc. a lot of the times he draws errors by his anticipation and defense and makes them beat themselves instead of just blasting winners past them.

But again maybe I misunderstood and sorry for going off topic a little but IMO that's bound to happen to this thread sooner or later anyway.

That´s fine zagor. I know Federer has a great defensive game as well. I think all of the top 4 have great defensive skills (maybe Djokovic on the forehand side not so much) so I didn´t mean that Federer played a Blake/Tursunov type of game in general. That quote was in the context of the discussion about Federer being as good a fighter as Nadal. My point was that Federer was a clutch player and mentally tough but not a great fighter and I said he played that type of game in the big points because I think he lacks the patience and he doesn´t feel comfortable playing long rallies in the big points so he tries to shorten the points and decide the point himself. He is an aggressive player rather than a fighter in the big points. I actually think he would win more of those big points if he relied on his defense a little bit. But as you say it´s off-topic so I´d leave it here.

 

[zagor]

That´s fine zagor. I know Federer has a great defensive game as well. I think all of the top 4 have great defensive skills (maybe Djokovic on the forehand side not so much) so I didn´t mean that Federer played a Blake/Tursunov type of game in general. That quote was in the context of the discussion about Federer being as good a fighter as Nadal. My point was that Federer was a clutch player and mentally tough but not a great fighter and I said he played that type of game in the big points because I think he lacks the patience and he doesn´t feel comfortable playing long rallies in the big points so he tries to shorten the points and decide the point himself. He is an aggressive player rather than a fighter in the big points. I actually think he would win more of those big points if he relied on his defense a little bit. But as you say it´s off-topic so I´d leave it here.

Okay,thanks for clearing that up.Now I understand much more clearly what you meant and mostly agree with what you said here but yeah it's off topic so I agree that we should leave it at this.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

I know you´re not being honest, isn´t Safin the GOAT?
There´s some work I did on this thread so I´m legitimated to post as much as I want especially if someone insists that Nadal is not a top 5 on hardcourts even though all the stats prove the opposite. And you´re the last one who should tell others how to behave on this forum.

lets have astrong laugh at this shall we...

 

[The-Champ]

Update. I just had a chat with the tooth fairy and she told me what the new requirement is to be a top 5 on a given surface. She said you have to beat a player in the top 10 at least 5 times. The only ones who did it were Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. So we have only 3 players in the top 5 on hard courts. The missing two are tooth gaps.

Then the molar fairy came and told me that the above rule was already obsolete. She said in order to be a top 5 player on a given surface you have to beat a top 10 player at least 6 times. Only Djokovic did that. So only one player is in the top 5 now. That's better than none.

I will keep you posted on new rules as they come to me.

Great post Benhur! Btw, it's nice to know we have a dentist or maybe a dental technician in the house!

 

[flying24]

That is a good breakdown and makes it easier to understand where everyone gained their points. Good work.