A player like McEnroe would take Nadal apart on an 80s grass court.
Wimbledon 2010
- Thread starter Baby Faced Assassin
- Start date
- Status
Thats like saying Bjorn Borg would have butchered Federer on a clay court, does that suddenly make Federer a lesser player?
And im sure John McEnroe would be the first to tell you he was never close to the player Nadal is today, he said himself on a Wimbledon chat show the other night Nadal will go down as possibly the greatest ever along with Federer and the likes of Laver and Borg.
Not many 24 year olds have 8 grand slams in their pocket, never mind 4 straight finals on a lesser favoured surface.
And im sure John McEnroe would be the first to tell you he was never close to the player Nadal is today, he said himself on a Wimbledon chat show the other night Nadal will go down as possibly the greatest ever along with Federer and the likes of Laver and Borg.
Not many 24 year olds have 8 grand slams in their pocket, never mind 4 straight finals on a lesser favoured surface.
That's because ten years ago grass was actually a meaningful surface. Now it's exactly the same surface as clay. It's slowed down so much in the past decade it's ridiculous.
That is just non sense and shows zero understanding of the thinking behind base line play. Nadal gets plenty of winners in to be classified as a percentage player.
Lets not exaggerate here, granted its not the grass court of 2001 that Pete Sampras literally owned but its not anything close to clay, maybe in a few years it might be but it still heavily favourable to the big servers hence why you saw a player like Berdych able to literally blow Federer off the court and reach his first Wimbledon final, why players like Soderling are so dangerous on grass with the big serve and heavy forehand, its a totally different surface to clay whether its slower than 10 years ago or not.
Are you saying what Nadals achieved at Wimbledon is not extremely special given you have so few players in history to have ever done the same? Sounds a bit harsh to me.
That's horse shit. It's slowed down a bit but people discounting Nadal's wins on the fact that it's become as slow as clay is ridiculous.
Big servers have a gala time at Wimbledon because it's the best surface for big servers. Just look at the Isner Mahut game if any further proof is needed. Just because no serve and volley is played anymore and everyone plays a base line game does not mean it's become super slow.
Berdych used powerful groundstrokes and a booming surface to beat Fed. Those tactics would not have worked that well on clay.
Wimbledon is yet a fast surface. People just like to label it "a clay court" to try and reduce Nadal's efforts.
If it really was such a slow court and like clay then a guy like Roddick would have never made it to so many finals.
Exactly. Andy Big Serve Roddick would have never made it to so many Wimbledon finals if it really was as slow as a clay court.
Very true, Another worthwhile comparison would be to look at the Nadal - Soderling final at Roland Garros compared to the Nadal - Soderling match just played at Wimbledon, the same match up, same player but on two different surfaces and what did you get, a totally different match of course, suddenly Soderling went from looking a nothing player who got tore to shreds on the clay by Nadal in straight sets to one who blitzed him with heavy shots and big serves in the first set and was up 5-0 in no time, that just 3 weeks after looking toothless on the roland garros clay, why? because grass is a hell of a lot quicker than clay its a totally different kettle of fish to clay and played more into soderlings hands suiting his power game.
Berdych would never have done what he did to Federer on a clay court, and its no surprise his first slam final came on a grass court either, a surface the despite being slower than in years gone by still heavily favours the big servers and heavy hitters, its a testament to Nadal hes been able to adapt his game so quickly to become what is undeniably now the best grass court player around as well as the dominant species on clay.
Just Hardcourts to go now.
Exactly. I don't understand people when they try to belittle Nadal's achievments by blaming the slow courts.
And no one can ever explain to me, if Wimbledon really HAS become like a clay court then how come clay courters like Ferrer, Ferrero, Verdasco, Almagro and all the clay court specialists over the last 10 years have not done anything on the grass at SW19 eh? Spaniards should be winning wimbledon every year considering it's as slow as clay!
Oh and yes the USO to go now. Originally it used to be a clay court, if only it was the same now eh?
And no one can ever explain to me, if Wimbledon really HAS become like a clay court then how come clay courters like Ferrer, Ferrero, Verdasco, Almagro and all the clay court specialists over the last 10 years have not done anything on the grass at SW19 eh? Spaniards should be winning wimbledon every year considering it's as slow as clay!
Oh and yes the USO to go now. Originally it used to be a clay court, if only it was the same now eh?
That's because Federer is in the latter stages of his career, whereas Rafa is where Fed was 5 years ago. Federer is easily better than Rafa over his entire career, as are about 10 other players who came before him.
Exactly. I don't understand people when they try to belittle Nadal's achievments by blaming the slow courts.
And no one can ever explain to me, if Wimbledon really HAS become like a clay court then how come clay courters like Ferrer, Ferrero, Verdasco, Almagro and all the clay court specialists over the last 10 years have not done anything on the grass at SW19 eh? Spaniards should be winning wimbledon every year considering it's as slow as clay!
Oh and yes the USO to go now. Originally it used to be a clay court, if only it was the same now eh?
I think its because Nadal is now visibly taking over from so many peoples idol (Federer) and its not going down well with some i suppose, Federers been spunked on for years and his fans will not have a good word to say about some other player taking whats considered rightfully his hence the downplaying/rubbishing whatever you want to call it of Nadals achievements, what matters is former greats like Mac, Borg, Becker etc all say the same, Nadal could go down as the best ever and that’s good enough for me.
Yeah i was also wondering why the second best clay courter in the world at the moment (Almagro) wasnt in the wimbledon final to? being a clay court specialist hed love the Wimbledon clay these days wouldn’t he?
Yeah im really looking forward to the US open this year, most open grand slam for years i think, probably the only slam i wouldn’t make either Nadal or Federer favourite for which shows how open it is, anyone from Djokovic/Murray/Soderling/Berdych/Del potro if fit/Tsonga/Roddick could possibly win it, on any given day those guys have the game to blow anyone off court.
And how does that explain Nadal beating Federer at the French in 06 when he was at his peak. And again in 07 and 08. And in 09 at Australia on hard courts where Fed is considerably better and also at 08 Wimby where Federer was yet 26 and pretty much at his best?
I think its because Nadal is now visibly taking over from so many peoples idol (Federer) and its not going down well with some i suppose, Federers been spunked on for years and his fans will not have a good word to say about some other player taking whats considered rightfully his hence the downplaying/rubbishing whatever you want to call it of Nadals achievements, what matters is former greats like Mac, Borg, Becker etc all say the same, Nadal could go down as the best ever and that’s good enough for me.
Yeah i was also wondering why the second best clay courter in the world at the moment (Almagro) wasnt in the wimbledon final to? being a clay court specialist hed love the Wimbledon clay these days wouldn’t he?
Yeah im really looking forward to the US open this year, most open grand slam for years i think, probably the only slam i wouldn’t make either Nadal or Federer favourite for which shows how open it is, anyone from Djokovic/Murray/Soderling/Berdych/Del potro if fit/Tsonga/Roddick could possibly win it, on any given day those guys have the game to blow anyone off court.
You know what the next claim will be by the Fed brigade? Nadal's never won the USO so he's clearly not a great. I can see those claims coming. If something as ridiculous as "Wimbledon is like clay" can come up then that's just around the corner. I already hear a lot of Fed fans say hes not a great until he wins the USO. Bjorg never won USO OR the Aussie and yet he's a legend.
Yeah USO is really open this year. It's great chance for the likes of Murray, Djoko, Davy and Sod to win a slam.
Surely its better to compare carears at even stages? i mean Nadals only been around 5 years or so so of course Federers carear to date will better his hes been around far longer so it should, what is interesting and comparable more to the point is Federer at the same age Nadal is now hadnt won as many majors as Nadal has, Federer had 5 majors at the age of 24, Nadal has 8, so carear comparison with Federer at the same time Nadals way ahead.
Also bare in mind it took Federer the best part of his entire career to finally conquer his least favourite surface (and even then he avoided the 1 man he can never touch on clay) where as Nadal won on his least favourite surface by the age of 22.…
Better to compare their careers when Nadals the age Federer is now and a likely 13+ majors to his name, it’s a bit unfair otherwise comparing a guy whos been in tennis over ten years to a guy whos barely been it it half that long even if he has achieved alot more than Federer had at the same time.
Nadal could go his entire carear not winning at Flushing meadows and still go down as the best theres ever been because hes already proven he can win slams on hardcourts so that monkeys off his back, 09 australia can never be taken away and he beat Federer to do it not some youngster or wildcard one hit wonder, he beat someone whos far more suited to the HC surface than he.
Nadals won slams on all the 3 surfaces so his legacy is there, hes got nothing to prove to anyone hes already considered an all time great and hes only 24!
Does chatting shit come natural to you... bleeding hell.
I'm guessing you've never watched Nadal... top spin lobs, his volleying which is criminally underrated, his serve is pure spin and isn't very powerful but extremely accurate.
The mens game has been extremely strong the past four years... Fed, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic, all of them capable of producing breath-taking tennis. Not to mention the rest of the mens tour which is pretty competitive. Hardly at an all time low.
Like watching girls play, don't make me laugh... its more physical than ever and yet despite this with the likes of Federer and Murray at the top there is still alot of variety present in mens tennis.
Nadal could go his entire carear not winning at Flushing meadows and still go down as the best theres ever been because hes already proven he can win slams on hardcourts so that monkeys off his back, 09 australia can never be taken away and he beat Federer to do it not some youngster or wildcard one hit wonder, he beat someone whos far more suited to the HC surface than he.
Nadals won slams on all the 3 surfaces so his legacy is there, hes got nothing to prove to anyone hes already considered an all time great and hes only 24!
Well if people can say he only won wimbledon because it's become slow, then not calling him a great for not winning USO is in the realms of possibility
Would be ironic though if he never won USO considering it used to be played on clay
Well if people can say he only won wimbledon because it's become slow, then not calling him a great for not winning USO is in the realms of possibility
Would be ironic though if he never won USO considering it used to be played on clay
Aye but only idiots will say that not respected former and current tennis greats who played the game and know how hard it is to do what Nadals done, thankfully its not up to wollys who gets acclaimed one of the all time greats of the game, anyone who wins the amount of slams Nadal has and will deserves that title.
Must admit id not heard the US used to be a clay court, interesting, shame they changed it Nadal would win 30 grand slams if they hadnt!!
Haha he would have won 2 Slams a year atleast for 6-7 years. That itself would have equalled Sampras' record
Infact Sampras would have never reached 14!
Infact Sampras would have never reached 14!
The US Open was originally played on grass until Forest Hills switched to Har-*** clay courts in 1975 for three years. In 1978, the event moved north from Forest Hills to its current home at nearby Flushing Meadows and the surface changed again, to the current DecoTurf.
Jimmy Connors is the only individual to have won US Open singles titles on all three surfaces, while Chris Evert is the only woman to win on two surfaces
Jimmy Connors is the only individual to have won US Open singles titles on all three surfaces, while Chris Evert is the only woman to win on two surfaces
Why on earth is T..R..U censored?
The caf, only on the caf.Interesting background on the US though, jimmy connors eh, hes a legend to on 8 grand slams....how manys Nadal won again?
Dont you know? Connors would take Nadal apart~
On those 80s grass courts no less.....
I'm not a Federer fan, infact I prefer Nadal to Federer, but the point you make isn't particularly valid given that all top players occasionally lose to their rivals even when they're at their peak. Borg lost to the likes of Connors and McEnroe, Lendl got hammered by Becker and Edberg, and so on. Historically speaking, Nadal is half the player Federer is because he's won half the slams he has, which is usually the barometer of greatness than most great players are measured against.
I don't think you can compare them like that because we don't know whether Nadal will win another slam. He could get injured again, Fed could rebound, other dominant players could emerge, anything could happen. I'll give you an example: When Boris Becker was 21, he had won three Wimbledons and many thought he would go on to rack up at least a few more in the post McEnroe/Connors era. He looked like he would certainly be a dominant player for years to come. Looking back, he didn't win another Wimbledon, losing out to the likes of Edberg and a then ascendant Sampras. Conversely, players like Agassi ended up having longer runs of success than Becker and Edberg, and are thus looked back on as being "greater". Bottom line is that Nadal and Federer aren't even in the same category yet. They could one day be, but the likliest scenario is that Fed will be looked back at as the greatest ever, whereas Rafa may end up in the category just below him that's shared by the likes of Sampras, Borg, and a couple of others.
In defense of Connors, he won over 100 more tournamets than Rafa has to date. Long way to go.
Borg below Federer?
Many if not majority will argue otherwise.
Many if not majority will argue otherwise.
Unfortunately for Borg, he never won an Aussie or a U.S. and his retirement at 26 probably hurt him in this regard as well.
Well yes of course that’s possible, no one can predict the future, Federer could break a leg tomorrow and never play tennis again and Nadal could go on to win more majors than him, no one knows, the likelihood is though that Nadal will be in very close proximity to Federers grand slam haul by the time he packs it in, and then its down to personal preference whos considered the greater player, personally i dont buy the Federer greatest ever tag never have, hes a fabulous player and one of the best for sure but the outright best? impossible to prove for one and i always find myself asking how can a player whos so clearly and consistently second best to a rival in his own era be considered the best of all time? every Head to head, slam final head to head whatever Nadals been so utterly dominant over Federer its scary really, Rafas really owned him since hes emerged on the seen and that during Federers best years to, its not as if Nadals beaten a declining Federer hes beaten him in majors ranging from 2005 to 2009, even pushed him to 5 sets in Miami at the age of 18! Going 2 sets clear.
Connors was a great player a legend of the game but come on, Nadal will likely finish his career with around twice as many grand slams as connors baring ridiculous injury, Nadals already matched Connors majors haul at infancy age wise, hes unique really.
How many points did he win forced with any of those shots on Sunday. Less than 1%?
That's precisely my point, we can't speculate or project what Nadal might do in the future. Right now, he's got 8 slams and that's all we can go by.
They've won a comparable amount of slams, but again, Nadal is over 100 tour victories behind Connors. That type of longevity is what propels Connors into the upper Pantheon of greats, even if his slam count isn't as high as the likes of Sampras and a few others.
Second point is that Nadal will not likely do anything. He could finish at 8 for all we know, which is why its pointless to speculate about success someone has yet to achieve.
It has been grass for most of its existence.Must admit id not heard the US used to be a clay court, interesting, shame they changed it Nadal would win 30 grand slams if they hadnt!!
Its a shame they changed it really, id have preferred two grass court slams a HC and a clay slam to the 2 HC slams of today.
Because of that no one builds a grass court game these days, they build for clay/hard and do some minor adjustments for grass.
IMO Rod Laver should be the true great. Federer and Nadal are not even close to that guy.
7 years as world number one. 2 Grand Slams. Only person in the open era to have won the Grand Slam. Won 11 slams despite being banned for 5 years.
He really is the true great.
Grass is treated too shabbily. Not even having ONE masters series tournament and outside the Slam the most important Grass tournament is Queens and that too with just 250 ATP points is a real shame. It's a disgrace really.
You have the hard court season for the first 3.5 months. You have it for the 2nd entire half of the year. And just 3 weeks for grass?
He barely got out of second gear against Berdych. If it was against Fed or any of the other top five, he'd have had to bring more variety to the table.
I believe the past five years of tennis is the best since the eighties.
Henman would never have made it to as many semis if he existed in the current generation.. alot of average players during the nineties and early 2000's. Sampras didn't really have a consistent rival to challenge him as Agassi was a when I feel like it I'll match up to you kind of player.
Why is Grass neglected so much though? its strange because often grass court tennis makes for the most exciting Tennis, a wider range of players can win and if your truly good enough you dont need to rely on the old grass court necessity’s of a serve and volley to be successful.
It’s a shame really, I do enjoy HC tennis but I think there’s to much of it and makes for a more 1 dimensional tennis match than grass.
It’s a shame really, I do enjoy HC tennis but I think there’s to much of it and makes for a more 1 dimensional tennis match than grass.
- Status