Weakest Clay Era In Recent Memory

[vtmike]

I mentioned the hard court era between 2003-2006 was the worst hardcourt era ever. Fed actually had competition on clay. Thus why he has never won Roland Garros.

Wow so,
because Federer was winning HC & Grass, the competition was weak &
because Nadal was winning RG, the competition was tough?? :-?

Are you so blind so as to not see the double standards you are following!!

 

[flying24]

I mentioned the hard court era between 2003-2006 was the worst hardcourt era ever. Fed actually had competition on clay. Thus why he has never won Roland Garros.

Those comments are completely ridiculous. The recent years, almost this entire decade, has had more depth on hard court than any other surface. The obvious reason for this is todays players almost all specialize and focus on hard courts since that is the surface that is most predominant today. More and more hard court type surfaces are taking over the tour, a process that started quite a few years ago, and players are being brought up with the grips and playing styles that best suit hard courts. In the years 2003-2006 as well as today if you go down the list of players the vast majority you would find hard courts is their best surface. I like Nadal more than Federer but these particular comments make you look like a complete ass. You are willing to go so far out of your way to be biased that you no longer say things that even make sense. If the field was weak on hard courts in your opinion from 2003-2006 it was then even weaker on clay. There is no argument for any years even as recent 2003 having more competition on clay than hard courts when you examine the field.

The reasons Federer dont win the French are simple. Because of Nadal himself, and because he never was as good on clay as other surfaces.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Those comments are completely ridiculous. The recent years, almost this entire decade, has had more depth on hard court than any other surface. The obvious reason for this is todays players almost all specialize and focus on hard courts since that is the surface that is most predominant today. More and more hard court type surfaces are taking over the tour, a process that started quite a few years ago, and players are being brought up with the grips and playing styles that best suit hard courts. In the years 2003-2006 as well as today if you go down the list of players the vast majority you would find hard courts is their best surface. I like Nadal more than Federer but these particular comments make you look like a complete ass. You are willing to go so far out of your way to be biased that you no longer say things that even make sense. If the field was weak on hard courts in your opinion from 2003-2006 it was then even weaker on clay. There is no argument for any years even as recent 2003 having more competition on clay than hard courts when you examine the field.

The reasons Federer dont win the French are simple. Because of Nadal himself, and because he never was as good on clay as other surfaces.

Wow so,
because Federer was winning HC & Grass, the competition was weak &
because Nadal was winning RG, the competition was tough?? :-?

Are you so blind so as to not see the double standards you are following!!

Fed mentioned "Thank God the hard court season is over". This means he now believes the era is tough on hardcourts. He used to have a cakewalk with the lack of competition on hardcourts but had more competition on clay. He even said that in an interview before his match with Rafa in the Semis of RG. He felt he had more competition on clay but clay is more natural to him.

 

[sh@de]

I mentioned the hard court era between 2003-2006 was the worst hardcourt era ever. Fed actually had competition on clay. Thus why he has never won Roland Garros.

Seriously, that's the most biased post I've ever seen. How do you justify your claims that the current clay era isn't weak, if your logic for the Fed hardcourt era being weak is that Fed dominated everyone? Nadal's dominating everyone on clay, using your logic, the current clay era should be weak too. But it's quite obvious that both the current clay era and Fed's hardcourt era were not weak.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

I never knew eras ended after 4 years.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Fed mentioned "Thank God the hard court season is over". This means he now believes the era is tough on hardcourts.

Fail! It means he had a craptacular Jan - Mar and wants to go do something different.

You still have a lot of explaining to do about the "Fed's era was weak; Rafa's is super tough." They're overlapping dude. Can't have it both ways. So which is it? Are you joining the Sampras jock sniffers or hanging with those of us in the present? I, and many others are waiting.

 

[Beacon Hill]

ah i think i get what your trying to say. Correct me if im wrong but i get the feeling that players who post their best results on clay leaning towards they are clay court specialists such as Robredo, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Juan Monaco, Nicholas Almagro people like them right are getting beat by players who are good at all courts like Djokovic, Federer, Nadal (I consider Nadal a all court player now don't shoot me for that).

Am i right? of course i am comparing to this generation only

Yep. Thanks.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Fail! It means he had a craptacular Jan - Mar and wants to go do something different.

You still have a lot of explaining to do about the "Fed's era was weak; Rafa's is super tough." They're overlapping dude. Can't have it both ways. So which is it? Are you joining the Sampras jock sniffers or hanging with those of us in the present? I, and many others are waiting.

The rise of Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Del Potro, and etc has made the era tougher. It was easy from 2003-2006 when they were too young.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Fed's "Era"
Nadal
Nalbandian
Hewitt
Roddick
Djokovic
Murray
Safin (when not a head case)
Agassi (twighlight of his career)
Ljubicic, Davydenko, Coria, Gaudio, Ferrero, etc.

Nadal's "Era"
Federer
Djokovic
Murray
Nalbandian
Tsonga
Davydenko...

My point is,...THE GUYS ARE STILL PLAYING AGAINST ONE ANOTHER! HOW ARE THEY IN TWO DIFFERENT ERAS?????
If anything, the so called Nadal "Era" has just started, and it's too early to judge. Wow, a 9 month period being called an era?

 

[West Coast Ace]

Fed's "Era"
Nadal
Nalbandian
Hewitt
Roddick
Djokovic
Murray
Safin (when not a head case)
Agassi (twighlight of his career)
Ljubicic, Davydenko, Coria, Gaudio, Ferrero, etc.

Nadal's "Era"
Federer
Djokovic
Murray
Nalbandian
Tsonga
Davydenko...

My point is,...THE GUYS ARE STILL PLAYING AGAINST ONE ANOTHER! HOW ARE THEY IN TWO DIFFERENT ERAS?????
If anything, the so called Nadal "Era" has just started, and it's too early to judge. Wow, a 9 month period being called an era?

Thank you. But don't expect Nadal_Freak to accept it. He's not going to believe it... - when you drink that much Kool-Aid, it doesn't matter how many visits to the bathroom you make...

Nadal_Freak, Fed still has a winning record - including some serious beatdowns on The Joker. And I'm sure he would send a limo today to make sure Del Potro made it to the stadium to play. Del Potro had a nice run into the top 10 - but wake me up when he does real deep at a major. And we'll see if he can defend all those points this summer - his stay in the top 10 might not be so permanent...

 

[!Tym]

There was more "depth" on clay when there wasn't someone as good as Nadal so the not so great clay court players could win Roland Garros and make the final or semifinal: Kafelnikov, Gaudio, Moya, Medvedev, Magnus Norman, Filip Dewulf, Stich, Henman, Korda, etc.
If these guys from the 90's are tougher competition on clay than a prime Federer and a prime Djokovic I've heard it all.

Kafelnikov made Moya look like a chump on clay at the end of his career. He was a VERY formidable clay court player at his best. I would say, however, that he was a matchup type guy. Didn't have the fortitude to find a way to win in style matchups that weren't favorable to him, and even in a decent style matchup he would get out-hearted by Kuerten.

Stich was a wild card type guy. You really should be surprised to see him lose or beat anyone in the world on ANY surface on any given day. Same with Korda. I mean Tsonaga is kind of like that. Some guys have electric, overwhelming talent/ability when "on", but struggle to put it all together.

The tournament also played "just like a hard court" in 96 due to it being unusually sun-baked. There were a lot of anomolies that year with pretty much all fast-court players in the final four.

Henman was a surprise sure, but not THAT surprising imo. Every now and then a serve and volleyer gets hot on clay and plays like they have nothing to lose, and gives baseliners putting too much pressure on themselves fits. That's what happened with both Rafter and Henman. It happens. It's a myth that serve and volley can't be effective on clay. If a serve and volleyer gets hot, and is volleying well and is able to wrong his opponents at the baseline on his volleys, they can be very effective. Just ask Edberg. Martin worked Berasategui in the finals of Barcelona...is he a clay courter too? No, of course not, but like I said, the best way for a volleyer to play on clay is to stick to their guns and make the unprepared and unsettled clay courter pay.

Norman struck me as a Kafelnikov type clay game, rock solid, but with more perserverance and heart.

DeWulf is one of the all-time mysteries. Don't ask why, even then he was like a what the heck is he doing here feeling? That too happens sometimes.

Medvedev was an AWESOME clay courter at his best. He had some of the most penetrating two-handed backhands I've ever seen. Medvedev could give anyone a run for their money on clay. I really don't know why you seem to think so little of him. The guy pasted the ball from the baseline with consistency, and was very intuitive about the right times to mix in net rushes and had a very good, solid volley. Nice court sense and feel around the net. Maybe his head wasn't always in the right frame of mind, but a positive thinking, good attitude Medvedev was no one's favorite draw.

This day in age, the reason why other than Nadal you see the same guys in the semis over and over is because, guys these days are raised with hard courts in mind first and foremost from an early age. Bruguera in his day never played on any hard courts growing up, it was a huge disadvantage once he hit the world tour. The REAL prizes and fruits in tennis are not on clay, they are elsewhere. And with the court surfaces becoming so homogenized, it happens to be that styles of play become more homogenized. And right now, you have a small handful of guys who aren't specialists per say, but the best guys adapted for TODAY'S playing conditions. Greater variety means a greater occurrence of upsets imo.

The reason is not just talent level, but rather because playing a guy with one style today and than a guy with a totally different style in the next round, say how Rafter and Henman did it at Roland Garros, can potentially "throw guys off", they suddenly find themselves feeling like their games just not quite in sync today. If you drive on an open-lane highway going straight forever more, who do you think is going to conssitently win the race? Easy, the cars best adapted to those conditions. In that case, that would mean the fastsest cars that drive best in a straight line.

Now, what happens if you throwing VARIABLES into the mix. Like you have to factor in parts of the race/circuit taking place on dangerously curvy mountain roads, and other parts of the rac/circuit on ice/snowy conditions, and other parts in rainy conditions, and other parts on extended downhills slopes going up and down like in San Francisco, and other parts in chaotic, hectic bumper to bumper city driving, etc., etc.? In that case, the results would become much less predictable. In those kind of worldwide conditions, a far greater variety of indeosyncrasies and styles would develop. Predicting how all these different styles will interact with each other when all thrown into the mix at the same time in each venue would become more unpredictable. More variables = more randomness; it's no long a simple case of saying, ok the three or four best are always going to be the best forever more every tournament, because with so many different styles of play navigating the waters, the potential to get caught off guard, or out of your optimum rhythm, or to get blindsided on any given day goes way up imo.

 

[mandy01]

Fed mentioned "Thank God the hard court season is over". This means he now believes the era is tough on hardcourts. .

Fail! He's been having back problems for sometime now and clay is a better surface for him at this time....you're utterly lame.

 

[Antonio Puente]

Why do people waste all this time comparing eras when it comes to Rafa and Roger? What's the point? Rafa spanks Roger head-to-head and makes him cry. Isn't that all you need to know? Forget about Del Potro, Rafa sends out a limo to make sure Roger makes it to the stadium to play.

 

[aznstryder712]

Why do people waste all this time comparing eras when it comes to Rafa and Roger? What's the point? Rafa spanks Roger head-to-head and makes him cry. Isn't that all you need to know? Forget about Del Potro, Rafa sends out a limo to make sure Roger makes it to the stadium to play.

why do people waste their time Comparing a 13 time GS champ to a 6 time? Come back to me when hes over 10+ GS

 

[gj011]

Nadal_Freak, Fed still has a winning record - including some serious beatdowns on The Joker.

Since Djokovic made it to top 5 (summer 2007) he is leading H2H with Federer 4-3. Sure Federer had some serious beatdowns against 18 years old Djokovic.

 

[sh@de]

I think current clay era is actually stronger than Fed's era (as in before Nadal appeared and Fed was already playing). With Nadal and Djokovic, and Fed as well (sometimes), the current clay era can hardly be considered weak. It may lack a bit of depth and specialists, but those who are good on clay right now seem pretty damn good.

 

[swedechris]

Fed's era was stronger altogether. Grass was alot stronger. Clay was slightly stronger but Hard is about the same as it was then if not an edge towards todays era.

i agree. too many players out there today are plainly onedimensional and frail mentally meaning if their game is not on , they dont bother.

 

[Cenc]

with fed nadal and đoko its fine, there were weaker eras
nadal is probably the best claycourter ever
however it would be fun if there were few other excellent claycourters who would give him more challenge like guga, moya and few others (being in their prime)
they wouldnt be better than nadal for sure but it would be fun if he had more excellent players to deal with, not just fed and đoko

 

[tacou]

just end your argument it's embarrassing.

I think other posters have nailed it on the head when the said it's not a lack of clay courters but a surplus of all courters. Igor Andreev is a great clay courter and plays his best on the red, but he's a serious hard courter as well who took Fed to 5 sets at the USO, fastest tournament there is.

that paired with the fact that beating Nadal on clay is as close to impossible as anything in any sport will obviously make the "clay field" look weak, but in reality it's just an extremely well rounded and talented field, and at the top is a man who dominantes everything, clay especially.

 

[sh@de]

just end your argument it's embarrassing.

I think other posters have nailed it on the head when the said it's not a lack of clay courters but a surplus of all courters. Igor Andreev is a great clay courter and plays his best on the red, but he's a serious hard courter as well who took Fed to 5 sets at the USO, fastest tournament there is.

that paired with the fact that beating Nadal on clay is as close to impossible as anything in any sport will obviously make the "clay field" look weak, but in reality it's just an extremely well rounded and talented field, and at the top is a man who dominantes everything, clay especially.

Yep. Best summary post ever.

 

[Beacon Hill]

just end your argument it's embarrassing.

I think other posters have nailed it on the head when the said it's not a lack of clay courters but a surplus of all courters. Igor Andreev is a great clay courter and plays his best on the red, but he's a serious hard courter as well who took Fed to 5 sets at the USO, fastest tournament there is.

that paired with the fact that beating Nadal on clay is as close to impossible as anything in any sport will obviously make the "clay field" look weak, but in reality it's just an extremely well rounded and talented field, and at the top is a man who dominantes everything, clay especially.

Yes, we have an era where many players can play on all surfaces. Do you agree that Nadal plays his best tennis on clay? And apart from him, what top players play their best tennis on clay?

 

[GameSampras]

Yes, we have an era where many players can play on all surfaces. Do you agree that Nadal plays his best tennis on clay? And apart from him, what top players play their best tennis on clay?

Not one other top player IMO. Djoker plays his best on Hardcourts, Fed the same, Murray the same. The depth is on HC's today essentially. Grass and clay is where its lacking IMO

 

[Leublu tennis]

There was more "depth" on clay when there wasn't someone as good as Nadal so the not so great clay court players could win Roland Garros and make the final or semifinal: Kafelnikov, Gaudio, Moya, Medvedev, Magnus Norman, Filip Dewulf, Stich, Henman, Korda, etc.
If these guys from the 90's are tougher competition on clay than a prime Federer and a prime Djokovic I've heard it all.

Dewulf?? Thats cute.
In his best year (1997) when he reached the lofty level of 39, here is his clay record:

Hamburg R64
French S
Bastad R16
Stuttgart R32
Kitzbuherl W
Amsterdam R32

Thats a clayer? Hm. I think Del Potro had a better record last year.

 

[CyBorg]

There is defininitely a lack of good clay courters out there.

Let's forget about Nadal and focus on those summer clay tourneys. How does a guy like Del Potro dominate that stretch when clay is not even close to being his best surface? Where is the competition?

 

[sh@de]

Just because someone is better at HC than he is on clay doesn't mean he can't be good on clay tho right? I think it's got to do with surfaces being homogenized, but in general, I would be reluctant in saying that the current field is weak just because those who are good on HC are also good on clay. Who knows, this era might just be an era of supermen who are damn good on all surfaces...

 

[CyBorg]

just end your argument it's embarrassing.

I think other posters have nailed it on the head when the said it's not a lack of clay courters but a surplus of all courters. Igor Andreev is a great clay courter and plays his best on the red, but he's a serious hard courter as well who took Fed to 5 sets at the USO, fastest tournament there is.

that paired with the fact that beating Nadal on clay is as close to impossible as anything in any sport will obviously make the "clay field" look weak, but in reality it's just an extremely well rounded and talented field, and at the top is a man who dominantes everything, clay especially.

I bolded the funny part.

A great or simply good clay courter is a player who excels on a particular surface exclusively and gets results consistently. There are very few consistent clay court specialists in the game today.

The whole "surplus of all courters" is utter nonsense to me. Del Potro has even said that he doesn't particularly like playing on clay and then we see him steamroll through the summer stretch.

 

[Safinator_1]

I agree with you 100%, but just know that's it's hard to post your opinion over a certain subject knowing you'll get attacked for it in the next minute.

Back to the OP: I'm waiting to see whether Nadal wins Madrid. If he does (most likely), then I think it's safe to say he has a weak competition. He's won 3 titles in a row now. It's time for someone to beat him.

If Nadal is that much better than the rest on Clay. Does that make it a weak clay era? (Not attacking btw lol im just intrigued by your opinion and hope to hear more)

For me i can't see anyone beating Nadal on Clay this year unless they somehow turn their game around. Why does it matter if Nadal wins again that its classified as weak? Once again intrigued

 

[Kaptain Karl]

<Mod Mode> DOZENS of childish trolling posts deleted. Stop it! </Mod Mode>

- KK

 

[Kaptain Karl]

Now that I had to slog through this whole thread, I have an opinion, too....




The OP's idea of an "era" is pretty limited IMO.

As a mental exercise in imaginative speculation, you can watch this clip of the 1981 FO final between Borg and Lendl, about 5 minutes ... and imagine replacing one of the players with a good clay courter of your choice from the current field. It does not even have to be Nadal. Let's think of guys like Davydenko, Djokovic, Ferrer, Wawrinka, etc.

Of course I have no idea what would happen. But sometimes I am tempted to believe if they insisted in playing this kind of warm-up tennis, they would be blown of the court.

This is a really good example of why these "era" arguments are a waste of time. Using this clip of the '81 Final is a really tired ploy on TT.

The '81 Final isn't even *close* to an "apples-to-apples" comparison:
• 65 square inch racquets
• No Poly or Kevlar strings
• Over 3 hours into a match between THE two most fit guys on the tour
• They were both exhausted

(Other than these insignificant points, it's a great comparison to make....)

- KK

 

[Benhur]

A great or simply good clay courter is a player who excels on a particular surface exclusively and gets results consistently.

By this outlandish definition, Laver and Borg and Lendl were neither great or even good clay court players, as they were suspiciously competent on other surfaces, to the point of excelling.

There are very few consistent clay court specialists in the game today.

That's true. Specialists, as by your definition above, can no longer make it in tennis by sticking almost exclusively to clay. There may be some still, but they are ranked too low. In the 80s, guys like Higueras or Emilio Sanchez still managed to be ranked in the top 10 by playing the majority of their schedule on that surface, especially Higueras. As someone pointed out, this became gradually more and more difficult, and today it would be impossible. If it weren't, I am sure a guy like David Ferrer, who is at least as good on clay, and probably better, than the ones I mentioned, would be quite happy to play on clay most of the time. Players know they have to be competent on hard courts if they want to make it. But being competent on hard courts or other surfaces is not an impediment to playing well on clay, and has never been.

The whole "surplus of all courters" is utter nonsense to me. Del Potro has even said that he doesn't particularly like playing on clay and then we see him steamroll through the summer stretch.

Your puzzlement that Del Potro has had good results on clay is itself puzzling. The only argument you are offering is that he is also good on hard courts, and maybe prefers to play on them. So what? Lendl often said that that his favorite surface was hard courts. Did that turn him into a bad clay court player??

Why did the Argentinean DC captain choose Del Potro and Nalbandian to play on clay against the Russians? Why didn't they choose a "specialist," someone who could play well exclusively on clay? I mean, Argentineans have plenty of good clay court players who are maybe not so good outside of it, while Delpo and Nalbandian are suspiciously good on other surfaces as well. Was Mancini insane when he chose them??

The bottom line is this. With the exclusion of Roddick, and possibly Tsonga, I see no compelling reason to believe that any of the current top 15 could not hang with the very best clay courters of other eras, and that includes Borg, Lendl, Bruguera, Muster, Guga etc. My memory is fresh enough to remember how those guys played, and tapes can be watched. They were very good on the stuff, but the notion that they were better than the current ones is just a matter of belief, not supported by anything I can discern from comparing videos.

 

[Benhur]

This is a really good example of why these "era" arguments are a waste of time. Using this clip of the '81 Final is a really tired ploy on TT.

The '81 Final isn't even *close* to an "apples-to-apples" comparison:
• 65 square inch racquets
• No Poly or Kevlar strings
• Over 3 hours into a match between THE two most fit guys on the tour
• They were both exhausted

I fully agree most "era" arguments tend to be rather silly. But since the players cannot be made to face each other from different eras, the next best thing is to watch tapes and compare -- allowing of course for the differences in racqets. Everything else is idle speculation. The clip is meant to represent a kind of extreme. But they were still playing points like that in the mid-80s with graphite racquets, and the Swedes in particular were moonballing each other to death. And sometimes they were also hitting harder. By the way, I don't mean to imply that it is a given those slow shots can be easily attacked from where the land. It just looks so incredibly different.

The racquets of course make a difference, but it is clear the ball can be struck much, much harder even with those racquets. The notion that they were extremely fit but exhausted after 3 hours is not very plausible. Was the match very intense before that? How intense? For intensity comparison, watch in detail the Barcelona finals of 07 and 08 and wonder how that kind of intensity can be maintained for 3 hours.

 

[Kaptain Karl]

... the Swedes in particular were moonballing each other to death.

I'm guessing you are under 30 years of age. (Because we don't have the same definition of terms.)

"Moonballing" has morphed into meaning something entirely different than when Harold Solomon -- mid-point -- would suddenly stroke a high topspin lob into his opponent's back court. This was to throw off the other guy's rhythm ... give Solly a quick breather ... frustrate the other guy ... let Solly re-tie his shoes, etc. Solly's deal was to change the pace.

Today people are calling players "moonballers" if their typical ground stroke is a topspin shot that clears the net by 4-10 feet. Those are not moonballs; those are just high ground strokes.

- KK

 

[Benhur]

I'm guessing you are under 30 years of age. (Because we don't have the same definition of terms.)

"Moonballing" has morphed into meaning something entirely different than when Harold Solomon -- mid-point -- would suddenly stroke a high topspin lob into his opponent's back court. This was to throw off the other guy's rhythm ... give Solly a quick breather ... frustrate the other guy ... let Solly re-tie his shoes, etc. Solly's deal was to change the pace.

Today people are calling players "moonballers" if their typical ground stroke is a topspin shot that clears the net by 4-10 feet. Those are not moonballs; those are just high ground strokes.

- KK

I turned 30 in the mid 80s, and by then the very high shots from baseline to baseline were already called moonballs by tv commentators and players themselves. I remember Bud Collins complaining about the perverse moonballing tendencies by the likes of Nystrom. I remember Lendl commenting dismissively on the general lack of shape shape in the women’s tour in those days (other than Navratilova and Evert) by saying that the girls just “camp on the baseline and hit moonballs.” Some points in those days were eternal. Some moonballs can be as high as lobs, but they were never called that since the term lob seems to be reserved for when the opponent is near the net. I don’t know that there is a minimum height for a moonball to be called a moonball, but 10 feet seems high enough for me to call it that. By the way, a well-hit moonball that lands close to the baseline with lots of topspin is a devilishly hard shot to attack or do anything much with by anyone except the very skillful, that’s why it was used, and is still used now and then today to pretty good effect by some players.

 

[Kaptain Karl]

I turned 30 in the mid 80s ...

Oops! Sorry.

By the way, a well-hit moonball that lands close to the baseline with lots of topspin is a devilishly hard shot to attack or do anything much with by anyone except the very skillful, that’s why it was used, and is still used now and then today to pretty good effect by some players.

Amen! (We agree on something.) You really have to pay attention and have good timing to counter them.

- KK

 

[35ft6]

This is a really good example of why these "era" arguments are a waste of time. Using this clip of the '81 Final is a really tired ploy on TT.

It's the two best performers on clay that year playing in the biggest tournament on clay that year, so plenty of incentive.

Might not be a definitive final word type thing, but video is way less subjective than anything else we got. It's right there. Watch it. Draw your own conclusions. If you want, find another video of that era. (like this one of Lendl and Wilander in 1987) Likewise, you wanna talk about who the better boxer is, Ali or Tyson at their primes, don't see how watching video of each person is a pointless exercise.

 

[35ft6]

By the way, we always talk about the men, what about the women? Are today's women the weakest ever? Could Chris Evert beat today's players on clay with her Pro Staff, which isn't really that outdated, some people still play with it.