Wilander believes that RG is the most difficult major to win

Sorry_to_tell_you_mate

Sorry_to_tell_you_mate

Professional
On Eurosport the seven-time Grand Slam winner Mats Wilander praised Rafael Nadal's French Open title. Wilander believes that this is the most difficult Major to win. "We are so privileged, and one thing people do not realize is that 90 percent of the field in the men's tournament grows up on clay, so they are very comfortable sliding and playing on clay, constructing points on clay compared to Wimbledon.

Nobody plays on grass. That's incredible', said Wilander on Eurosport. "The way Nadal hits the ball with the amount of top spin and court coverage, everybody expected it to be a great match. The first two sets met with the expectations.


https://www.**************.org/tenn...e-energy-in-the-second-set-vs-thiem-wilander/
 
Wilander is only half right on 90 percent grew up on clay. In Sweden the outdoor clay season is about 4 months, the rest of the year we play indoors on hard courts and it's probably similar in other parts of Europe except for the southern part.

It's the toughest for everone but Nadal but the other three are the toughest for Nadal. It's a paradox.
 
Last edited:
How is it even possible to define which Slam is "easy" to win or not if we talk in general and not about certain players with certain abilities? Every Slam is won by exactly one player, and for everyone is it easier where the surface and the circumstances suit his game more.

Wilander talks as if players are athletes who must run a certain distance in a mandated time, which can be easier on hardcourt than on clay or the opposite. But no, we talk about a tournament of 128 players which has to have one winner who is relatively better than 127 others. It’s irrelevant if it’s hard on the body or requires finesse or whatever. You must always be better than 127 others, no matter what is important. So it’s always the same difficulty.

If anything, it is harder to DOMINATE on grass because a servebot can run hot one day and beat the favourite, while physical advantages will usually remain more consistant, so Nadal will stay superior on clay until he gets too old.
 
tennisaddict said:
It is physically demanding. Does not mean toughest

You need more talent for grass and more grit for clay
Click to expand...
Unlike the popular idea on this forum, you need amazing talent on both surfaces.You can only grind on clay if you are really young that maybe brings you 2 or 3 titles RG level maximum.On grass you can have fluke win like Krajicek but if you want to be Fed and Sampras type of player you need exceptional skills.
 
On grass beeing great can be neutralized by your opponent just by one shot: the serve.

On clay this is not possible, so the better player is much more likely to win, much less room for an upset.

On hard the competition is the hardest bacause everybody is a hard specialist today.

So if anything french open it is the easiest slam to win if you are the best player
 
Last edited:
ChrisRF said:
How is it even possible to define which Slam is "easy" to win or not if we talk in general and not about certain players with certain abilities? Every Slam is won by exactly one player, and for everyone is it easier where the surface and the circumstances suit his game more.

Wilander talks as if players are athletes who must run a certain distance in a mandated time, which can be easier on hardcourt than on clay or the opposite. But no, we talk about a tournament of 128 players which has to have one winner who is relatively better than 127 others. It’s irrelevant if it’s hard on the body or requires finesse or whatever. You must always be better than 127 others, no matter what is important. So it’s always the same difficulty.

If anything, it is harder to DOMINATE on grass because a servebot can run hot one day and beat the favourite, while physical advantages will usually remain more consistant, so Nadal will stay superior on clay until he gets too old.
Click to expand...
Nadal domination on clay shouldnt give people a false belief that it is easy to dominate on clay.If your ground game is a bit off not even your serve can save you on clay.On grass you can still live with it.
 
It is the easiest for Nadal. Fact.

It is the hardest for others BECAUSE of Nadal. Fact.

It's circular, so if we remove Nadal, what do we have left? Thiem made the last 2 RG finals, the best of everyone besides Nadal. That's with only 2 chances total in 2 yrs. In the same 2 yrs, he had not 2, but SIX chances at the other 3 slams, yet his best results is one single QF. Wilander, is RG still the most difficult for everyone to go far, thus having chances to win? Or is everyone else outside the Big3 winning lots of slams not named RG?

Being away almost 4 yrs, Fedr made the SF on his first try. He's a better player on hc/grass, a fact. But with 3 times the chances, he only made 1 QF in the other 3 slams. Yet, RG is the hardest? Sure, it's the hardest ONLY bc of Nadal, but it's not the hardest to get to the finals.
 
Growing up on clay doesn't mean that much. There are plenty of youngsters who play well on clay without playing a typical clay game. They might even for a while consider it their favourite surface. The difference in 'how to play' on each surface is less pronounced compared to the pros, because of players not yet fully physically developed. Then they grow up, join the pros and realize they aren't that good on clay when facing Nadal and the other topspin monsters, and that their game is better suited to hardcourts or grass.
 
Disagree. In my opinion the toughest tournament to win is the tournament that is prone to the most upsets. Every year we talk about how slim the margins are at Wimbledon and how careful the top guys have to be because so many players have huge serves and the sets are so tight. Wimbledon challenges the mentality and the gut of a player like no other tournament because it's almost always a return here or a serve there that wins the sets. On clay it is so much easier to dominate an opponent and that usually always shows with the lopsided scores in sets. I will say that Roland Garros is WITHOUT A DOUBT the toughest tournament in the world physically. Absolutely I will admit that. However, it is not the toughest tournament in the world to win. That in my opinion is Wimbledon.
 
justasport said:
Disagree. In my opinion the toughest tournament to win is the tournament that is prone to the most upsets. Every year we talk about how slim the margins are at Wimbledon and how careful the top guys have to be because so many players have huge serves and the sets are so tight. Wimbledon challenges the mentality and the gut of a player like no other tournament because it's almost always a return here or a serve there that wins the sets. On clay it is so much easier to dominate an opponent and that usually always shows with the lopsided scores in sets. I will say that Roland Garros is WITHOUT A DOUBT the toughest tournament in the world physically. Absolutely I will admit that. However, it is not the toughest tournament in the world to win. That in my opinion is Wimbledon.
Click to expand...


My how times have changed. Used to be that Wimbledon was the specialists Major where the best serve and volleyers dominated and it was easy for guys like Sampras and Federer and Navritolova to rip off Wimbledon victory after victory. The French always seemed to have a different winner every year and it seemed hard to dominate as it made the serve bots mortal and forced shot making and fitness and willpower to play a greater role.

Now we see one man dominate a specific major and its "easy" and "for specialists" and Wimbledon is the "hardest".
 
justasport said:
Disagree. In my opinion the toughest tournament to win is the tournament that is prone to the most upsets. Every year we talk about how slim the margins are at Wimbledon and how careful the top guys have to be because so many players have huge serves and the sets are so tight. Wimbledon challenges the mentality and the gut of a player like no other tournament because it's almost always a return here or a serve there that wins the sets. On clay it is so much easier to dominate an opponent and that usually always shows with the lopsided scores in sets. I will say that Roland Garros is WITHOUT A DOUBT the toughest tournament in the world physically. Absolutely I will admit that. However, it is not the toughest tournament in the world to win. That in my opinion is Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

Yup. RG is soooo tough to win that Lendl won it 3x, he won the USO 3x, and won the AO 2x. YET, he especially took RG off JUST to prepare for WB, so that he has the best chance to win one WB, yet... he could only make the finals twice (kudos for the dedication though).

But sure, RG is the toughest to win for everyone, Matts. Its toughness has nothing to do with a certain Mallorcan, the most dominant single surface, single location player ever (with only 2 losses to date!). And it's the toughest for him too, so tough that he won 12 of them, more than anyone ever at any single slam. ;)
 
If its the hardest to win why does Ned have 12 times as many of them as the Australian Open and 4 times more than his best real tennis slam?

Why cant he win the easy ones? Is he not good enough to win easy tournaments?

No. In fact its the reverse.

Roger, Pete, and Novak the people with the most real slams of all time are not concerned with the French because it is the easiest and because it is worthless.
 
In days past (early Open Era and prior), all of the surfaces had a set of necessary skills that were required. I'd say they were all on par in terms of difficulty. But with technology advances, grass got WAY easier. The second serve and volley no longer became required, the difficulty on the surface was completely neutered.

All I have to say is that Ivanisevic won a slam on grass. That is does not speak well of the surface and what technology has done to it.
 
mightyrick said:
In days past (early Open Era and prior), all of the surfaces had a set of necessary skills that were required. I'd say they were all on par in terms of difficulty. But with technology advances, grass got WAY easier. The second serve and volley no longer became required, the difficulty on the surface was completely neutered.

All I have to say is that Ivanisevic won a slam on grass. That is does not speak well of the surface and what technology has done to it.
Click to expand...

So something that was a bit surprising to me, Goran actually had 3 QF results at RG and AO and SF result at the US Open.

Compare this to someone like Gaudio who won RG and did very poorly elsewhere.

Goran's serve was definitely an equalizer on all surfaces, but overall his game is probably more well rounded than someone like Gaudio's to begin with. We could also go on a separate tangent about how poly turned tennis into baseline bashfests on both clay and hard. Although people are going to have their own opinions on that subject.
 
fundrazer said:
So something that was a bit surprising to me, Goran actually had 3 QF results at RG and AO and SF result at the US Open.

Compare this to someone like Gaudio who won RG and did very poorly elsewhere.

Goran's serve was definitely an equalizer on all surfaces, but overall his game is probably more well rounded than someone like Gaudio's to begin with. We could also go on a separate tangent about how poly turned tennis into baseline bashfests on both clay and hard. Although people are going to have their own opinions on that subject.
Click to expand...

Well, let's just say that due to whatever circumstances, Ivanisevic got extremely lucky in 2001. Gaudio got extremely lucky in 2004. Roddick got extremely lucky in 2003.

I consider all three to be flukes who won due to circumstance. But I also consider all three to have increased their luck-factor greatly due to technology advances with poly and with mid-size/mid-plus racquets.
 
tennisaddict said:
It is physically demanding. Does not mean toughest

You need more talent for grass and more grit for clay
Click to expand...

Yes, and I think winning 8 wimbledon without a master's and sometime only one grass tournament against lower fields is much harder to do.

Fed gets one tournament to find his form, Rafa (as you saw this year) has 4 tournaments to find his form, and all against top level fields.
 
tennisaddict said:
It is physically demanding. Does not mean toughest

You need more talent for grass and more grit for clay
Click to expand...
If by talent you mean hitting close to the line, running FHDTLs, a great net game, and an ability to adapt to surfaces other than your natural best surface to be able to beat the best, Nadal has done that too. Recall that nobody has swept the hardcourt summer season since Roddick except Nadal in 2013. And that hardcourt is not his best surface.

If you can't recognize Nadal's talent it has more to do with your lack of impartiality.

Nadal has a more conservative style which tends to look less flashy, but it's not a lack of talent.
 
The hardest of the majors to win is the French Open, certainly. But I believe it is probably the easiest to defend if you the best player, because the surface is a meritocracy.

Very hard to "fluke" a SF appearance or title win on a surface that puts so much pressure on technique, consistency and power, so it's a tournament where the best are under less pressure from "the rest".

Credit to Nadal for the due diligence required to always be near or amongst the best on all surfaces but specifically clay each year. That's how he earns the chance.

His title count at RG is the only current record in tennis that I believe will never be matched.

The hardest major to defend is Wimbledon imo. Once you get to the final, grass is a crapshoot. Anyone can get hot and blitz someone on the right day.

For this reason, Sampras' record of being undefeated in finals there is a ridiculous statistic. How he managed that tightrope walk over and over again without dropping a final speaks to his mental state when it counted most (for him).
 
mistik said:
Nadal domination on clay shouldnt give people a false belief that it is easy to dominate on clay.If your ground game is a bit off not even your serve can save you on clay.On grass you can still live with it.
Click to expand...
But the field can as well on grass, so the superiority of the one who (normally) dominates isn’t that safe. Nadal on the other hand can take the serve of the opponent away on clay, at least to a big degree. And of course his ground game needs talent, don’t get me wrong. Otherwise people would only need to go to the gym long enough to equal his abilities.

Nadal is so superior in his ground game on clay that he doesn’t need to be at his best in terms of shot length etc. His spin (and to some degree being a lefty) does the trick for him, even if his shots land shorter than the opponent’s shots. Sometimes it isn’t even visible how good he really is. That’s why it’s also difficult to estimate which version of Nadal would beat himself from another year.

So yes, Nadal is absolutely great on clay of course. He is so great that it is really easy for him.
 
mightyrick said:
All I have to say is that Ivanisevic won a slam on grass. That is does not speak well of the surface and what technology has done to it.
Click to expand...
Yet Ivanisevic beat your boy Pete on grass. Another hilarious fact is you guys idolize an absolute muppet (Krajicek) but take the micky out of Goran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lew II
Wilander about Murray: ''the game is passing him by''
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
Cecilia
C
Frenchy-Player
"I think the era of winning is over" - Wilander on Nadal and Federer
Replies
16
Views
1K
terribleIVAN
terribleIVAN
tennisaddict
Wilander : Before FO 2018 Rafa could hold all 4 majors / 18 slam count
Replies
19
Views
2K
augustobt
augustobt
clayqueen
Wilander has seen the light
Replies
26
Views
2K
DSH
DSH
T
Is Mats Wilander the most underated player of all time?
2 3
Replies
126
Views
13K
Hal
H
Back
Top