wyutani
Hall of Fame
south american and spain.
Why is Nadal so good on clay?
- Thread starter Lotto
- Start date
south american and spain.
GameSampras
Banned
Who are these "greatest clay court players to ever play the game" today?
Theres no Gugas out there, No Borgs, No Wilanders, No Brugueras, No Musters, no NOTHING. There's Federer. LOL.. Nothing against Roger. Hes very good talent on clay. But the rest of the tour leaves much to be desired. Could u imagine if Kuerten had only one player on clay to worry about?
Theres no Gugas out there, No Borgs, No Wilanders, No Brugueras, No Musters, no NOTHING. There's Federer. LOL.. Nothing against Roger. Hes very good talent on clay. But the rest of the tour leaves much to be desired. Could u imagine if Kuerten had only one player on clay to worry about?
Last edited:
rubberduckies
Professional
Lol. Another clown post.
Mental game is part of overall game.
Federer's problem is not mental. He backhand weakness is not a mental thing. It is a weakness in his stroke.
GameSampras
Banned
I dont think Pete would lose to Rafa 4 years in a row at the same Slam. Clay or not. One of those times Pete would say enough is enough. Pete in his prime wouldnt just get embarrassed by the same player year after year at the same slam . Sorry just wouldnt happen. One of those times Pete would pick it up.. He did it against Bruguera. And bruguera quite a few times at RG beat Pete but Pete finally got him. He beat Courier, he beat Muster. So he did beat some very good clay court players.
Last edited:
feetofclay
Semi-Pro
Yes, his interview at Wimbledon on June 27th.2008, following his match with M. Gicquel.
he didnt lose 61 63 60 because of his backhand
very true...
sampras isnt anywhere near as good claycourter as nadal but he wouldnt let himself lose 4 consecutive roland garroses to ANYONE
(2005 semis, 6,7,8 - finals)
once he would find the game for sure, the way he did against everyone else
also nadal has troubles passing real volleyers (i dont mean feds volleys from this years roland garros finals)
and sampras also had great baseline game so... yes i would see him beating nadal once in 4-5 years
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
You're an idiot. Nadal adjusts his game on grass by quite a bit. He serve's a ot more harder, takes the ball earlier, stands closer to the baseline, occasionally comes to the net amongst other things. His movement is a key factor. The BBC (UK Broadcaster) even show the difference between him coming from the FO Final and the Fast grass in Queens showing the difference's that his play style are on grass and clay using hawkeye. You know Nadal would be a threat on real grass. Even as a 17 year old back in 03, he got to the 3rd round of Wimby in his very first grass tournament.
By the Way, Hewitt's preferred surface is the fastest surface and least preferred is his slowest (clay). Look at his U.S Open record (one of the fastest surfaces) dating back to 1999. Something like QF,SF,W,QF,F,SF,QF. So he definitely liked / still likes quick grass. Look at his record at Queens too.
Gen
Banned
Have you seen Hamburg Masters 2008 semifinal? Are you sure Djokovic performed badly there? Actually nowadays he is stretching Nadal much more than Federer does (Roland Garros too). Do you remember a guy called Guillermo Coria? Nadal fought against him in 2004-2006. Is he a good enough clay courter for you? Have you seen any South Americans besides Nalbandian? There's a bunch of clay talents over there. If you and your buddy americans don't like clay tennis and don't know anything about it, it doesn't mean that this tennis doesn't exist and people in the other countries don't care for it. Yes we do. In Europe and South America, the two continents where good tennis players are still available.
feetofclay
Semi-Pro
The-Champ
Legend
I guess when Federer beat Nadal in Hamburg he was the best player on clay in the world?
You can't measure greatness by the performance of 2 tournaments. Federer is the best on grass.
If Federer won Roland Garros this year would people suddenly call him the greatest clay courter in the world? No.
Let's stop with all the exaggerations already?
Gen
Banned
Hard courts aren't as bad as they used to be. In 1990s most of the rallies were 3-4 shots. Many times it was serve, one volley, end of the rally. Nothing to look at. I do remember people complaining that tennis became so boring and everybody played one and the same game and bla bla bla. Like nowadays maybe the same sufferers are crying about the baseline tennis being so dull, and everybody using the same strategies, and bla bla bla. To me clay tennis is long rallies, combinations, angles, passing shots, game intelligence rather than kilometres per hour in serve&volley. Though I liked Stephan Edberg with his beautiful touch.
feetofclay
Semi-Pro
CyBorg
Legend
I'm not a big fan of Nadal's competition either, but Nadal is a legit clay great. Incredible mover, perfect body for the surface, solid groundies from both sides. And his consistency on the surface is remarkable - not since Borg have we had a player who seems to never have an off-day on clay.
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
I'm amazed that you would even compare the tournaments as anywhere near a level of comparability. Wimbledon, arguably the greatest tournament versus a master series. By the way, Hamburg wouldn't even be anywhere near as important as the French/Aus. GS v MS. No comparison.
ksbh
Banned
I didn't see any 'outlasting' in this years final. 1, 3 & 0!
Nadal is several cuts above the rest on clay. If he needed to outlast the rest of the field, he wouldn't have won the title without dropping a set!
Nadal is several cuts above the rest on clay. If he needed to outlast the rest of the field, he wouldn't have won the title without dropping a set!
Michael Bluth
Semi-Pro
As has been said, Hewitt was best on fast surfaces so it's not that bad he made the Wimbledon finals. Same for Nalbandian, he seems best on fast surfaces as well though he is a baseliner.
Michael Bluth
Semi-Pro
Plus it's not like it was unheard of for baseliners to make Wimbledon finals before. Lendl got to 2, Agassi won it and got to another final. Just like it's not unheard of for a great serve and volleyer to occasionally go deep at RG(Edberg, JMac each made a final)
Nadal and more compact swing
You may see
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/06/sports/tennis/20080906_Nadal.html?ref=tennis
You may see
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/06/sports/tennis/20080906_Nadal.html?ref=tennis
feetofclay
Semi-Pro
no more carpet
in 3 seasons all the tournaments will be played on clay,
Fantastic, then we will be treated to some real tennis, instead of serves and a speed gun.
yes it makes me very disappointed when someone who has never seen a tennis RACKET (not match) live can speak about tennis
nadal and game for grass goes to the same league as rusedski playing on clay
yes i said hewitt was fine but i also said nalba was NOT someone who would make finals of REAL WIMBLEDON
IN 2003 THERE WASNT REAL GRASS
he cant adjust anything
380pistol
Banned
According the USTA the orignal speed of the US Open at Flushing was 1978-2000. In 2000-2001 they slowed it down. Then according the USTA they sped it up after 2002 (faster than 2000-2001, but still slower than 1978-2000), and when a big server(Roddick) and a claycourt/counterpucher(Ferrero) made the final in 2003, they kept it that speed calling it "happy medium". Now all this according to the USTA.
Now Federer was the one who called the old US Open courts "unplayable" due to their speed. So is he the most reliable one to judge the speed???
Also the ITF and Wimbledon were trying to slow the courts at SW19 since Sampras/Ivanisevic which they said culminated in 2001.
380pistol
Banned
1993 Wimbledon Sampras/Agassi
1995 Wimbledon Becker/Agassi
2000/01 Wimbledon Rafter/Agassi
1993 Wimbledon Courier/Edberg
1992 US Open Edberg/Courier
1994 US Open Agassi/Chang
Just curious would you consider these "ace fests"??
Fantastic, then we will be treated to some real tennis, instead of serves and a speed gun.no more carpet
in 3 seasons all the tournaments will be played on clay, just coloured differently
Ahhh yes, cuz the serve is not "real" tennis.
Last edited:
Wow, talking about making a statement. Looks like you've just played down all the European players.
GameSampras
Banned
You mean the european players who have yet to make a DENT in RG. Thats why year after year its been Fed-Nadal with the rest of the pack 20 miles behind.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
i think he meant Shwank, Callieri and Horna et. al.
giants of clay... real talents who some how manage to win nothing big...
GameSampras
Banned
Lets just look at Roger's Quarterfinals opponents at RG the last 4 years for instance. That should tell the whole story.
Hanescu
Ancic
Robredno
Gonzales
Now look at say Pete for instance. A player who everyone wants to thrash on for his dysmal RG performance
Bruguera
Courier twice
Agassi
Much different I would say wouldnt u?
Is there any guarantee Roger could get through that on clay? Like I said.. Cakewalks for Roger and Nadal
Nadal_Freak
Banned
1 Clay offers the highest bounce which maximizes Nadal's topspin.
2. Nadal likes to return deep behind the baseline. This maximizes his ability to return serves on a slower surface.
3. Nadal grew up on clay and his movement is amazing on this surface. Much better than it is on hardcourts but he still seems to bring a lot of that great movement on grass due to similar feel. (soft and slippery)
2. Nadal likes to return deep behind the baseline. This maximizes his ability to return serves on a slower surface.
3. Nadal grew up on clay and his movement is amazing on this surface. Much better than it is on hardcourts but he still seems to bring a lot of that great movement on grass due to similar feel. (soft and slippery)
edmondsm
Legend
Really? I thought the idea was that your feet didn't slip on the grass. That's why they where the shoes with the little cleats on them.
Nadal moves good on grass because he's just a great mover, period. Probably the best footwork in the world. He has to be that good at it because his big shot, the forehand, takes a little while to set up.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
He benefits from the slipperiness in that doesn't bother him as he grew up on a slippery surface. Other players that grew up on hard courts don't find clay or grass that comfortable to move on for the most part.
edmondsm
Legend
That's a good point.
Gen
Banned
Nalbandian didn't play in Wimbledon final in 2003. He did it in 2002. It was Federer who won it in 2003. If grass was not "real" that time, does it mean that all Federer Wimbledon titles are fake? And why have you started talking about "unreal" grass this year only? In all justice you should have done it 5 years ago.
feetofclay
Semi-Pro
Well obviously it's part of the game, but IMO it should not be the dominant factor. When the serve becomes the the major part of the game, which tends to happen on hard courts,then tennis loses its magic. It's like comparing hitting on a golf driving range to playing a round of golf. I tire of listening to commentators marvelling at the speed of serves and watching spectators hold up tally cards for number of aces served, they might just as well watch a serving practice session. Just my opinion, if that's allowed.
yes real tennis
8022 shots through the middle until someone makes a mistake doing 8022 same shots in every single point and at least 9013 points will be played
reaaaaaal tennis, amazingly interesting
actually when i cant sleep i turn on some clay match between 2 spaniards or latin-americans and believe it or not i fall asleep in few minutes
edberg505
Legend
Hmm, really? Because both Pete and Jim Courier grew up on hard courts.
so.. the worse server someone is the better player he is?
imagine ur a pro: you would stop practising serve just to make fans like u happy?
serve is the shot that needs most athletism and that is the toughest to hit, also players need to be much fitter and faster to play net game than baseline game
for your information...
i was referring to 2 different posts
yes i know that hewitt vs nalba was in 2002 finishing 61 63 62 (or something like that)
and fed vs philippoussis was in 2003 finishing 76 62 76 i think
so...
i say: real grass ended more than 5 years ago and ur an idiot
yes wow im unhappy that nadal won a title and thats why i said that past 7years grass wasnt real (5 of those were feds titles, 1 hewitts and ONLY 1 nadals) so whats ur point??????
P_Agony
Banned
I think Roger had the game to beat Nadal on clay in 2007, and he did just that in Hamburg, but his head is nowhere to be found once he's playing Rafa. In Monte Carlo 2007, Fed led by a break and still lost the 1st set. In Roland Garros 2007, Fed won a set but just couldn't convert all those break points he had (something that also happened at this year's Wimbeldon). I truly think that when Fed's playing Nadal he just doesn't believe he can win the match...no matter what the surface is.
However, just by looking at Hamburg 2007's final, Fed's head was in his place, and he came back from 2 6 to 6 2 and a bagel.
However, just by looking at Hamburg 2007's final, Fed's head was in his place, and he came back from 2 6 to 6 2 and a bagel.
Gen
Banned
Since your arguments are reduced to calling people idiots, I have no more points to discuss with you. Read some Aristotle at leisure: Contumelia non argumentum, and polish your manners, if not your brains.
Yes, belief has something to do with it. But the question is where does the low self-belief come from? Is it because fed. just has low self-belief against everyone or does fed's low belief arise because nadal does special things that fed. can't counter? Historically this has happened before, sampras put agassi out of the game for about a year(?), sampras beat up on kafelnikov so bad it just wasn't that fun for the russian.
THere is nothing special about being a break up on clay. We have seen it many times, Fed. gets up a break (2005 RG 3rd set, 2005 RG 4th set, several sets this year before the final) but nadal raises his level and can come back into the set. The interesting thing this year imo is nadal was winning sets against Federer on clay that he would have lost previously. The 2nd set at MC looked to be a classic fed thrashing of nadal, but not this year.
I agree 2007 was fed. at his best on clay but it was a little bit too late, nadal also raised his level by that point. Five years ago I thought fed. would win a french before he was done, but this nadal is just too good.
Gen
Banned
Federer played an amazing match vs Nadal on clay in Rome Masters 2006 final. It's comaprable to Wimbledon-2008 final IMO. 5 hours and 5 minutes of super-tennis. Nadal was stretched to the most. Even now I am pretty sure that if Federer won that match (and he had opportunities: Nadal was 15:40 in the 10th game of the last set, Federer was 4:2 up in the 5th set tie-break), the history of clay tennis could have been different. By winning this match which looked practically lost, Nadal broke Federer's confidence. Otherwise Federer would have been on fire and could have won Roland Garros-2006.
Similar threads
