Why nearly all clay prospects except Rafa are doing horrible this clay season?

NatF

Bionic Poster
I don't know, I think Fed was all over the place at the time. He declined quite a lot in 2009. Plus, he was under pressure, because Rafa was out. Except for the final, all his RG matches were really bellow par. Come on, he needed five sets for Roddick and lost to Delpo at USO final. He bageled Delpo at AO 09 and destroyed Roddick at AO 09. I doubt Roddick and Delpo improved that much in just a few months to match Fed's peak level.

Sorry to tell you but I think Fed was much tougher at FO 12 than in 2009.

Basically everything you said here is nonsense :D Federer was superb in the FO final and played a great match in the SF overall, he was way better than 2012...as was Del Potro BTW who arguably played a better match against Fed at the FO than USO.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I don't know, I think Fed was all over the place at the time. He declined quite a lot in 2009. Plus, he was under pressure, because Rafa was out. Except for the final, all his RG matches were really bellow par. Come on, he needed five sets for Roddick and lost to Delpo at USO final. He bageled Delpo at AO 09 and destroyed Roddick at AO 09. I doubt Roddick and Delpo improved that much in just a few months to match Fed's peak level.

Sorry to tell you but I think Fed was much tougher at FO 12 than in 2009.
So tougher that he lost at least a set every match from R2 onwards and only reached the semis thanks to a Delpo injury, giving people the ilusion that Fed was still prime on clay in 2012.

Fed wasn't that horrible in 2009, since he reached all 4 slam finals and ended the year as no.1. He went 5 sets with Roddick because of Roddick's level and because of the pressure of breaking the slam record.

And in 2009 Fed at least had competition from the young players unlike Djokodal from 2015 onwards.
 

JackGates

Legend
So tougher that he lost at least a set every match from R2 onwards and only reached the semis thanks to a Delpo injury, giving people the ilusion that Fed was still prime on clay in 2012.

Fed wasn't that horrible in 2009, since he reached all 4 slam finals and ended the year as no.1. He went 5 sets with Roddick because of Roddick's level and because of the pressure of breaking the slam record.

And in 2009 Fed at least had competition from the young players unlike Djokodal from 2015 onwards.
I made a mistake, I meant RG 11 obviously, that is my bad. I think apart from the final Fed wasn't so great in 2009. If we are comparing Fed to his peak on clay. I think his level in 06,07,08,11 overall was better apart from one fluke great performance versus Soderling and that loss vs Rafa in 2008. But even in 2008, till the final, he was pretty damn solid.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I made a mistake, I meant RG 11 obviously, that is my bad. I think apart from the final Fed wasn't so great in 2009. If we are comparing Fed to his peak on clay. I think his level in 06,07,08,11 overall was better apart from one fluke great performance versus Soderling and that loss vs Rafa in 2008. But even in 2008, till the final, he was pretty damn solid.
Yes, he was better in 2011 than in 2009 despite not winning the title. But overall he was definitely better in 2009 than in 2011, outside the FO.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Yes, he was better in 2011 than in 2009 despite not winning the title. But overall he was definitely better in 2009 than in 2011, outside the FO.

Lighter balls in 2011, I'd back 2009 Federer with those balls to do just as well in the latter stages of 2011 if not better.
 

JackGates

Legend
Yes, he was better in 2011 than in 2009 despite not winning the title. But overall he was definitely better in 2009 than in 2011, outside the FO.
Well, the reference was to young guys can't even beat Fed's 2009 level. My point was that yeah even when his 2009 level wasn't his best on clay, guys today couldn't even beat 2009 Fed. Which is sad.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I made a mistake, I meant RG 11 obviously, that is my bad. I think apart from the final Fed wasn't so great in 2009. If we are comparing Fed to his peak on clay. I think his level in 06,07,08,11 overall was better apart from one fluke great performance versus Soderling and that loss vs Rafa in 2008. But even in 2008, till the final, he was pretty damn solid.

nope, not 2008.
he wasn't that solid in 2008 before the final.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
How do you measure solidity?

watch the matches...see how cleanly he is hitting. How many UEs ?
check the stats. check the scores.

lost a set tp Montanes, Gonzalez and Monfils. didn't play all that great in the Monfils match. even though a straight set match, didn't play all that well vs benneteau either from what I heard.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
The final two rounds of 2009 were better than pretty much any other year IMO.

possibly. But it could be termed the Nadal effect.
If he had faced 2009 Soderling in RG 2011 final, the result would've probably been similar to the 2009 RG final and RG 2011 semi was better than RG 2009 semi.
 

JackGates

Legend
watch the matches...see how cleanly he is hitting. How many UEs ?
check the stats. check the scores.

lost a set tp Montanes, Gonzalez and Monfils. didn't play all that great in the Monfils match. even though a straight set match, didn't play all that well vs benneteau either from what I heard.
Ok, so if he didn't play well and had better results, that means his opponents were playing at weaker level?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
possibly. But it could be termed the Nadal effect.
If he had faced 2009 Soderling in RG 2011 final, the result would've probably been similar to the 2009 RG final and RG 2011 semi was better than RG 2009 semi.

If 2009 Federer had those balls in the final I think he'd do better tbh.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You said Fed's level till the final was higher in RG 2009 than in 2008 even when Fed had better stats, what is the treason for that?

He lost 6 sets in both RGs.

If you're talking only about before the final, he lost 3 sets in RG 2008 and 6 sets in RG 2009 --- yes, his opposition was clearly tougher in RG 2009 than in RG 2008. (before the respective finals only)
 

JackGates

Legend
He lost 6 sets in both RGs.

If you're talking only about before the final, he lost 3 sets in RG 2008 and 6 sets in RG 2009 --- yes, his opposition was clearly tougher in RG 2009 than in RG 2008. (before the respective finals only)
Or, Federer was playing at a higher level in 2008 before the final if we go by the stats.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Or, Federer was playing at a higher level in 2008 before the final if we go by the stats.

not from what I saw.

1R to 4R yes, considering the Haas and Acusaso matches.

QF&SF -- considerably/significantly better in RG 2009 compared to RG 2008. delpo in the semi was playing at a considerably higher level than Gonzalez/Monfils in RG 2008 and Federer did great to get that win. He of course straight-setted Monfils in RG 2009 QF in an excellent match.

Overall, I'd take RG 2009 before the final.
 

JackGates

Legend
not from what I saw.

1R to 4R yes, considering the Haas and Acusaso matches.

QF&SF -- considerably/significantly better in RG 2009 compared to RG 2008. delpo in the semi was playing at a considerably higher level than Gonzalez/Monfils in RG 2008 and Federer did great to get that win. He of course straight-setted Monfils in RG 2009 QF in an excellent match.

Overall, I'd take RG 2009 before the final.
Ok, according to your naked eye, who was playing at a higher level, Borg or Roddick?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Ok, according to your naked eye, who was playing at a higher level, Borg or Roddick?

If you don't take into account the considerable change in racquets/racquet tech, Roddick.
If you take them into account, Borg.

And its not even a relevant comparision here as the difference in # of years is big here (along with other changes)

RG 2008 vs RG 2009 is just a 1 year difference with no change in racquets/racquet tech.
 

JackGates

Legend
If you don't take into account the considerable change in racquets/racquet tech, Roddick.
If you take them into account, Borg.

And its not even a relevant comparision here as the difference in # of years is big here (along with other changes)

RG 2008 vs RG 2009 is just a 1 year difference with no change in racquets/racquet tech.
Ok, but you can't really determine the level of play with your eye, can you at least accept that? Because all pros contradict themselves all the time when talking about level of play, so why should we take that over stats?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Ok, but you can't really determine the level of play with your eye, can you at least accept that?

Because all pros contradict themselves all the time when talking about level of play, so why should we take that over stats?

yes, you can. But at times, you can go wrong with solely the eye test, so you cross-check with the stats (taking the context into account, not just blindly taking the stats at face value)
 

JackGates

Legend
yes, you can. But at times, you can go wrong with solely the eye test, so you cross-check with the stats (taking the context into account, not just blindly taking the stats at face value)
Ok, let's assume that you can and that you have cracked the code, who among big 3 has the highest peak level of play and on what surface? And who among them had the toughest competition?
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
they were indeed not yet playing with so much topspin, angles and power back in the mid 00s on clay, and also the serve was less important then. like Metsman, i also suspect that the top-layer at RG has been made thinner and the subsurface packed harder meanwhile. plus lighter balls are in use now on clay. so the comparison with Costa and also Coria is hard to draw.
i agree with you on Dimitrov's, Delpo's and Edmund's clay prowess.
as for Thiem, he's still coming back from an injury. i can't guess how much he can improve his game in coming years, but for now i have no reason to write him off. not disagreeing on your Coric hype, but in his recent match has Thiem shown that he's just the bigger talent than the hardworking Croatian peasant. :D
My assertion earlier is proving very correct:
Response to deluded OP @Sudacafan ;)
"Not making it to Rafa:
Thiem has lost to Tsitsi and Rafa
Shapo lost to Tsitsi and no one else so far
Tiafoe only lost to PCB in the finals of Estoril in his first red clay event of the year (Tiafoe deserves a wildcard into Rome, they've already wasted three on Italien chumps.)
Goffin lost to Nadal in Barcelona

The only one we can dump on for losing early is Pouille within the above universe. In conclusion you must be oblivious to the Tsitsipas to have written this tripe."

Now we have Coric barely losing to Thiem who beats Nadal. Shapo and Zverev live on in Madrid.:eek:

Don't underestimate Coric who has a great record against Thiem and Nadal.o_O
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
My assertion earlier is proving very correct:
Response to deluded OP @Sudacafan ;)
"Not making it to Rafa:
Thiem has lost to Tsitsi and Rafa
Shapo lost to Tsitsi and no one else so far
Tiafoe only lost to PCB in the finals of Estoril in his first red clay event of the year (Tiafoe deserves a wildcard into Rome, they've already wasted three on Italien chumps.)
Goffin lost to Nadal in Barcelona

The only one we can dump on for losing early is Pouille within the above universe. In conclusion you must be oblivious to the Tsitsipas to have written this tripe."

Now we have Coric barely losing to Thiem who beats Nadal. Shapo and Zverev live on in Madrid.:eek:

Don't underestimate Coric who has a great record against Thiem and Nadal.o_O
Seems Nadal’s clay competition is looking better by the minute since today.
Only a couple of sets lost after the 50-streak was needed for the winds of change.
What happened to 0/6 2/6 Thiem in Monte Carlo?
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Seems Nadal’s clay competition is looking better by the minute since today.
Only a couple of sets lost after the 50-streak was needed for the winds of change.
What happened to 0/6 2/6 Thiem in Monte Carlo?
@Gary Duane and myself having been having statistical orgasms over Thiem in convo for much of 2018. Fractured ankle and getting back on track curbed my enthusiasm. He's just getting started and should roll at RG.;) Unbelievably, Thiem and Rafa are in the same quarter in three straight M1000s on clay.:mad: 1 in 64 chance of this. If it happens at RG, that is 1 in 256.o_O

Nadal doesn't have a lot of excuses for this match that aren't going to be issues ongoing, but he does have one in my mind; he had a 17 hour turnaround from the day before while despite a longer match Thiem had more than 24 hours. I believe that was enough to have him a bit off where Thiem playing well could really take advantage.

On the Nadal front take a look at Shapo.:eek: Shapo on fire and potential incoming R16 Rome for Rafa.:confused: @vive le beau jeu ! approved.

I'm also complete gaga on the stats front for Tsitsipas and Coric. Coric passed the eye test in his defeat to Thiem. Tsitsipas could easily do a turnaround like Thiem and beat Nadal in their next match. For the sake of RG I hope Tsitsipas qualifies in Rome and gets into Djoko's quarter where he should be able to get enough points to get seeded at RG. Coric needs points as well and seemingly has a great draw at Rome, but he faces a Qualifier first round and Jarry, Tiafoe, or Tsitsipas could turn Borna into the most dangerous floater RG has seen in a long, long time.:mad: Jarry is the first ever true clay servebot (well Zedrot in Rome hasn't been broken:oops:) and I'd actually love to see him next to Nole in Rome.:D
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
@Gary Duane and myself having been having statistical orgasms over Thiem in convo for much of 2018. Fractured ankle and getting back on track curbed my enthusiasm. He's just getting started and should roll at RG.;) Unbelievably, Thiem and Rafa are in the same quarter in three straight M1000s on clay.:mad: 1 in 64 chance of this. If it happens at RG, that is 1 in 256.o_O
Um, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Statistical orgasms is about pleasure and being pumped up, and Thiem's stats this year have been a horror show.

I've been discussing a statistical nightmare. :D

As I've told you, anyone who is winning 42% of return points is usually around 32% of games. In fact, in 2011 one player was winning 42% of points and was a bit over 35% of games. He was red hot, winning 47% of his BPs on return.

In comparison, up until this week Thiem was at 36% of BPs.

Think about that. One guy is red hot for the year and wins 47% of BPs.

Thiem was at 36%. That's an 11% difference for two guys winning the same amount of points.

By the way, Thiem was -4% on service BPs, which is normally around 1% lower than service points. So he's been crap on important points.

There are two explanations:

1. Bad luck (which happens.)
2. Bad strategy on important points, which I blame on coaching.

By the way, I still think Thiem is the second best player on clay when he's playing up to his potential, but I don't like his coaching. Maybe he doesn't listen, or maybe he does but can't do what he's taught, but I doubt that. He's a REALLY intelligent guy.
Nadal doesn't have a lot of excuses for this match that aren't going to be issues ongoing, but he does have one in my mind; he had a 17 hour turnaround from the day before while despite a longer match Thiem had more than 24 hours. I believe that was enough to have him a bit off where Thiem playing well could really take advantage.
I don't understand clay court scheduling. IW and Miami gives a rest of one day between many matches, and there is spacing between them. In the clay season the winners play 5 days in a row, with almost no rest between events. This is not good for anyone and is probably a large reason why Nadal gets injured later in the year.
 
Top