The 2013 In Between Grand Slam Thread

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Here's a question for you... now that Serena has matched Federer for Slam titles (singles) and will more than likely surpass him, will Federer still be banded about as the greatest player ever?

I disagree that he's the greatest player in the first place. Anything you want to base it on Graf, Navratilova, Evert and others have better numbers than him. Leaving those players aside though I don't even think he's the greatest active player.

Serena's career covers roughly the same time frame, at the start of her career there were many who competed with her, unlike Federer who was like Serena is now when he first started winning. They both played at a time where there was a real difference between surfaces.

And yet I suspect whenever they raise the question of greatest player of all time Federer will still be the first name on everyone's lips.

Tox56

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Here's a question for you... now that Serena has matched Federer for Slam titles (singles) and will more than likely surpass him, will Federer still be banded about as the greatest player ever?

I disagree that he's the greatest player in the first place. Anything you want to base it on Graf, Navratilova, Evert and others have better numbers than him. Leaving those players aside though I don't even think he's the greatest active player.

Serena's career covers roughly the same time frame, at the start of her career there were many who competed with her, unlike Federer who was like Serena is now when he first started winning. They both played at a time where there was a real difference between surfaces.

And yet I suspect whenever they raise the question of greatest player of all time Federer will still be the first name on everyone's lips.

Cheating a bit here but if Serena and Federer were to play each other at their peaks, it would be a question only of how many games Serena would win. I suppose that would rule out all women but if we're basing it purely on ability as "greatest tennis player" it would have to be a man. Judging it on achievements is also dodgy because of the varying quality of every generation. I say keep to separate genders at least, not a fair comparison otherwise. To be honest it's an impossible question to answer anyway

Gerry91

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Here's a question for you... now that Serena has matched Federer for Slam titles (singles) and will more than likely surpass him, will Federer still be banded about as the greatest player ever?

I disagree that he's the greatest player in the first place. Anything you want to base it on Graf, Navratilova, Evert and others have better numbers than him. Leaving those players aside though I don't even think he's the greatest active player.

Serena's career covers roughly the same time frame, at the start of her career there were many who competed with her, unlike Federer who was like Serena is now when he first started winning. They both played at a time where there was a real difference between surfaces.

And yet I suspect whenever they raise the question of greatest player of all time Federer will still be the first name on everyone's lips.

Hard enough compare between different eras never mind genders

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I don't see that it is. You can talk about the most technically gifted, or strongest or whatever and then you can say genders can't be compared but for all the reasons they (media) give for Federer being the best ever.... there's a female player that has better stats.

I'm not trying to make it a gender issue really. It just annoys me that whenever the discussion comes up they just jump straight to Federer, like they don't even recognise the things that these other women achieved.

So basically I just wonder that now we have another female of the same time period who will better Federer's record... will they still ignore that and continue to say it's Federer?

Gerry91

It's an impossible question to answer. Would Federer have won as many if Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal peaked earlier? Doubtful, but it's still all hypothetical

However Federer has won a lot of slams with these guys and even too players like Tsonga, Berdych, del potro at the top of their games

No comparison between that level of competition and what Serena faces in these last few years

Nadal could well overtake fed will he be the greatest then? He'll be 4 off after tonight most likely

How can you say who's better between laver and Federer? If peak Federer played him he'd hammer him. It's impossible compare between eras

Similarly peak Federer would beat peak Serena 6-0 6-0 6-0

You just can't compare between genders. Fwiw Serena isn't even greatest womens player ever, statistically or on ability

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Gerry91 wrote: »

It's an impossible question to answer. Would Federer have won as many if Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal peaked earlier? Doubtful, but it's still all hypothetical

However Federer has won a lot of slams with these guys and even too players like Tsonga, Berdych, del potro at the top of their games

No comparison between that level of competition and what Serena faces in these last few years

As I said in the original post, Federer faces compitition now, but he didn't really have any serious comptition in the first few years he won Slams. Serena is the opposite. When she first started winning there was more compitition there for her. It's the same as Federer's career only in reverse.

You just can't compare between genders. Fwiw Serena isn't even greatest womens player ever, statistically or on ability

You say you can't compare between genders but it sounds like you're saying men are automatically superior? Which is my issue with how the media treat this topic. Federer is automatically trotted out as the best ever and it seems really to only be because he's a man.

I didn't say Serena was the best ever, I mentioned Graf, Navratilova etc. but as you keep pointing out you can't compare era's so as of this era, the one Federer is still competing in Serena is the best women's player.

Gerry91

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

As I said in the original post, Federer faces compitition now, but he didn't really have any serious comptition in the first few years he won Slams. Serena is the opposite. When she first started winning there was more compitition there for her. It's the same as Federer's career only in reverse.



You say you can't compare between genders but it sounds like you're saying men are automatically superior? Which is my issue with how the media treat this topic. Federer is automatically trotted out as the best ever and it seems really to only be because he's a man.

I didn't say Serena was the best ever, I mentioned Graf, Navratilova etc. but as you keep pointing out you can't compare era's so as of this era, the one Federer is still competing in Serena is the best women's player.

Well if you are talking about the best tennis player ever it'll obviously be a man

Best footballer, swimmer, golfer etc all men. They're better at sports than women are

If you are going to compare genders you have to look at it relatively speaking. In this era I think Nadal and fed are pound for pound better than Serena and have had a better career. To do this you have to factor in competition, which I did do with fed in my last post btw...

Where Nadals 12/13 slams harder won than Fed's overall? Who knows probably. It's all opinion though the only definite way you can measure greatest is on number of slams simply

But only in the same gender!!! Women's tennis is a completely different game than men's. if you're listing greatest footballer ever you'll have zidanes, messi's, peles, maradona's etc you'll never see women on the same list and rightly so

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

For the record I don't think Nadal rates next to Federer at all. You take out the clay and he's only won 4 Slams. Greatest clay court player of all time? Definitely. Greatest ever? Nope.

Tox56

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You say you can't compare between genders but it sounds like you're saying men are automatically superior?

But they are! It's not sexism, or even a matter of opinion, it's just the way it is. Like the Murray-Williams match that was rumoured a while back, it wouldn't even be a contest. It's not an insult to Williams but the men's and women's games just aren't comparable in that sense

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Tox56 wrote: »

But they are! It's not sexism, or even a matter of opinion, it's just the way it is. Like the Murray-Williams match that was rumoured a while back, it wouldn't even be a contest. It's not an insult to Williams but the men's and women's games just aren't comparable in that sense

That's fine, I agree you can't compare them in that sense. But they weren't competing against each other to win their titles. The women were competing against women, the men against men, so relatively speaking I don't see how their achievements aren't comparable.

To use other sports as an example... Missy Franklin is widely recognised as the greatest active swimmer in the world right now. She's quite likely to meet if not surpass Phelps' records. Obviously if peak Phelps' swam against her he'd most likely win, but does that make him a greater swimmer even if she ends up with more medals than him?


EDIT: Oh, and just as a matter of interest... Djokovic is playing Li Na in a charity match in Beijing later this month. They obviously picked Li because she's Chinese but it's not exactly a fair match up.

Gerry91

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

That's fine, I agree you can't compare them in that sense. But they weren't competing against each other to win their titles. The women were competing against women, the men against men, so relatively speaking I don't see how their achievements aren't comparable.

To use other sports as an example... Missy Franklin is widely recognised as the greatest active swimmer in the world right now. She's quite likely to meet if not surpass Phelps' records. Obviously if peak Phelps' swam against her he'd most likely win, but does that make him a greater swimmer even if she ends up with more medals than him?


EDIT: Oh, and just as a matter of interest... Djokovic is playing Li Na in a charity match in Beijing later this month. They obviously picked Li because she's Chinese but it's not exactly a fair match up.

Ah it'll only be a bit of craic. They'll give Djok one serve and allow Li play on doubles court or whatever

The reason it's Djok is most likely he's the most exhibition-friendly of the big guys for want of a better term.

Rafa is a nice guy but they don't call him dull for nothing

Fed takes himself a bit too serious I think

Djoko is good old craic and will get the crowd involved

EDIT- No f-all really about swimming but that Chinese young one must be pound for pound the best even if there are huge doubts about her achievements. OT though but just saying

WaterLily.

Personally I (in general) hate all these discussions about the so-called 'best tennis player ever'. Not talking about yours at all though, because I can see so many valid points. But so much of the time Federer is just stated as being the best ever and it's as if there is no arguing it, just because he has the highest total of grand slams on the men's tour means he's the best.

In my opinion you just simply can't say who the best of the best is, there are far too many variables (not to even mention the women who have more slams than Federer). I think it is fairly obvious that Federer had very little opposition in the first few years after he started winning slams, also 2 out of the 4 slams are played on hard-courts giving him an advantage as it's his favourite surface. And who's to say that if 2 out of the 4 were on clay Nadal wouldn't have about 20 at this stage and Federer about 12? I'm not saying that Nadal is the best ever, I don't think he is, but I just think that it is impossible to compare players solely on the number of grand slams.

The top players at the moment have so much stiffer opposition than Federer ever did until Nadal and Djokovic came onto the scene properly.

Also you can't compare different eras in tennis, it's just impossible, complete speculation. I'm sure at the time everyone thought Laver was the best of all time, then Sampras, now Federer...

I think at the end of Federer and Nadal & cos careers people can possibly and only possibly then deduce who is the best of all time but I think it's ridiculous when they haven't even retired yet!

I think people should just enjoy the tennis at the time and that's that


And on a completely unrelated note Gerry91, have you seen the 'Hit for Haiti' charity match? Federer doesn't take himself seriously at all, or at least he didn't then, I found him and Nadal hilarious at times!:D

Djokovic's personality is the most exhibition friendly but I'd say more people would rather see Federer or Nadal.

Gerry91

WaterLily. wrote: »

And on a completely unrelated note Gerry91, have you seen the 'Hit for Haiti' charity match? Federer doesn't take himself seriously at all, or at least he didn't then, I found him and Nadal hilarious at times!:D

Djokovic's personality is the most exhibition friendly but I'd say more people would rather see Federer or Nadal.

Haha I did as it goes. Yeah Fed was nice and relaxed during it in fairness, I do think he's too into saying the right things though and trying to always show himself in a good light to be a draw for most fun exhibitions in my opinion.

Djokovic just lets loose and takes the p1ss out of everyone. As a player I way prefer Fed can't stand Djok whatever it is

Nadal seems a lovely fella off court, he just laughed really during that he's not the most comfortable making jokes etc nothing wrong with that!

The Queens exhibition this year was brilliant btw hope it becomes a regular

WaterLily.

Gerry91 wrote: »

The Queens exhibition this year was brilliant btw hope it becomes a regular

Totally agree, I absolutely loved it!

GonzalezT1000

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I don't see that it is. You can talk about the most technically gifted, or strongest or whatever and then you can say genders can't be compared but for all the reasons they (media) give for Federer being the best ever.... there's a female player that has better stats.

I'm not trying to make it a gender issue really. It just annoys me that whenever the discussion comes up they just jump straight to Federer, like they don't even recognise the things that these other women achieved.

So basically I just wonder that now we have another female of the same time period who will better Federer's record... will they still ignore that and continue to say it's Federer?

I say Federer is the best if all time, but when I say that I'm comparing against men not men and women. It's too hard to compare women and men relatively. In absolute terms Federer is far better than Serena, she'd be lucky to win a few games peak vs peak.

GonzalezT1000

Gerry91 wrote: »

Haha I did as it goes. Yeah Fed was nice and relaxed during it in fairness, I do think he's too into saying the right things though and trying to always show himself in a good light to be a draw for most fun exhibitions in my opinion.

Djokovic just lets loose and takes the p1ss out of everyone. As a player I way prefer Fed can't stand Djok whatever it is

Nadal seems a lovely fella off court, he just laughed really during that he's not the most comfortable making jokes etc nothing wrong with that!

The Queens exhibition this year was brilliant btw hope it becomes a regular

In interviews I actually think he is one of the more honest on the tour these days.

Gerry91

GonzalezT1000 wrote: »

In interviews I actually think he is one of the more honest on the tour these days.

Which one?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Okay, I guess the point I was trying to make is how annoying I find it when Federer is the first, and often only, name they bring up when discussing these things. Often they don't even mention the women at all.

I suppose it is difficult to compare men vs women but would it be so hard for some of the broadcasters to raise this point? I'm talking mainly about Sky here because they're who I see most, but I've read a lot of these debates and it's always the same. I suppose because I noticed this morning that Serena had matched Federer for singles Slam titles that it was probably a topic that would arise again soon in the mainstream media.

EDIT: As for Djokovic in the exhibition match in China, I'd say they chose him for two reasons. 1 - He's sponsored by Uniqlo, who have a huge Asian market, and 2 - I would not be at all surprised if Nadal and Federer skipped Asia this year. I'd say at the moment Novak is the only one they know for sure will be there.

RosyLily

According to Iveta Melzer, Nicole Vaidisova will be returning to the WTA tour next season. Hasn't been confirmed by Nicole herself afaik but watch this space. She's only 24 so it's fairly possible.

Kvitova vs. Vaidisova at Australian Open anyone??:D

Gerry91

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Okay, I guess the point I was trying to make is how annoying I find it when Federer is the first, and often only, name they bring up when discussing these things. Often they don't even mention the women at all.

I suppose it is difficult to compare men vs women but would it be so hard for some of the broadcasters to raise this point? I'm talking mainly about Sky here because they're who I see most, but I've read a lot of these debates and it's always the same. I suppose because I noticed this morning that Serena had matched Federer for singles Slam titles that it was probably a topic that would arise again soon in the mainstream media.

EDIT: As for Djokovic in the exhibition match in China, I'd say they chose him for two reasons. 1 - He's sponsored by Uniqlo, who have a huge Asian market, and 2 - I would not be at all surprised if Nadal and Federer skipped Asia this year. I'd say at the moment Novak is the only one they know for sure will be there.

Is Shanghai not mandatory?

Fed can't afford to skip much or he'll be soon enough in the 9-12 category and there goes any chance he has of sneaking a good slam run

Nadal will probably play too, he's defending no points so he might aswell. If his knee was that bad he wouldn't have played Cincinatti

He stands to only really lose points from March on next year (bar Wimbledon) so he's better off gaining as much as he can now. Murray will likely gain a good bit if he plays full clay season, so Nadal will want to stay 1-2

The point you seem to be making is when someone asks who is the best tennis player ever, automatically men come up in the discussion.

It's just the way it is, rightly or wrongly. The same for every sport bar equestrian or something where I'd say women and men are on an equal footing

It's not sexism or anything just mens is more popular.

If I ask most people who's your fave tennis player they'll generally respond Nadal or Murray or whatever they'll rarely say Serena or a female player straight off. Just a natural instinct probably

You'd probably have to ask who's your most favourite Womens player, while if you wanted to know their fave mens asking who's your favourite tennis player will normally suffice

Gerry91

RosyLily wrote: »

According to Iveta Melzer, Nicole Vaidisova will be returning to the WTA tour next season. Hasn't been confirmed by Nicole herself afaik but watch this space. She's only 24 so it's fairly possible.

Kvitova vs. Vaidisova at Australian Open anyone??:D

Is Hingis meant to be back or did I dream it?

Strange one if she is!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

RosyLily wrote: »

According to Iveta Melzer, Nicole Vaidisova will be returning to the WTA tour next season. Hasn't been confirmed by Nicole herself afaik but watch this space. She's only 24 so it's fairly possible.

Kvitova vs. Vaidisova at Australian Open anyone??:D

Vaidsova's agent said she's not thinking about tennis at the moment, just wants to get fit again. She'll see after that.

Gerry91 wrote: »

Is Shanghai not mandatory?

Fed can't afford to skip much or he'll be soon enough in the 9-12 category and there goes any chance he has of sneaking a good slam run

Nadal will probably play too, he's defending no points so he might aswell. If his knee was that bad he wouldn't have played Cincinatti

I think Federer can pick and choose now he's been on the tour 10 years. As for Nadal, I don't know, but I'd say playing Cinci before the US Open makes more sense than playing after it. He was going to be in the US anyway, it's a good warm up for it. He might end up playing in Asia, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't.

Gerry91 wrote: »

Is Hingis meant to be back or did I dream it?

Strange one if she is!

She's been playing doubles since Toronto, I think. Hasn't been doing very well though.

Gerry91

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I think Federer can pick and choose now he's been on the tour 10 years.

He'd be daft not to IMO. He needs any bit of ranking points he can get. He'll never defend them at WTF's and AO the way he's going

GonzalezT1000

Gerry91 wrote: »

Which one?

Federer

yerwanthere123

RosyLily wrote: »

According to Iveta Melzer, Nicole Vaidisova will be returning to the WTA tour next season. Hasn't been confirmed by Nicole herself afaik but watch this space. She's only 24 so it's fairly possible.

Kvitova vs. Vaidisova at Australian Open anyone??:D

There's been rumours about her returning for years. Hope this time it's true! Cause that would be some match

scouser82

Talk of Rafa being the GOAT is absolute nonsense. I'd like to see how he would have got on in the 90s when grass and hard courts actually played fast. He would have been destroyed by the great serve and volley masters like Sampras, Ivanisevic. Federer was a great serve and volley player in his early days but had to modify his game to keep ahead on the glorified clay courts which are now used at SW19, Flushing Meadows and elsewhere.

And don't give me the head to head nonsense against Federer. During the heyday of their rivalry, Federer was regularly reaching finals on his weakest surface, clay, thus giving himself more opportunity to rack up a rake of defeats to Rafa. Nadal on the otherhand rarely reached the final of hard court events during this time (never made the final of the US Open when Federer was winning) meaning Roger didn't get the same opportunity to clean up against Rafa on HIS better surfaces.

And finally we have the other more cynical stuff, which sadly is against the charter to discuss.

WaterLily.

^ Roger was at the peak of his career at age 22-26 while Nadal was still developing as a player, he is 5 years younger than Roger so of course he wasn't reaching finals of hard court tournaments. Now he has improved vastly and is playing so much more aggressively.

There is always someone that completely disregards Rafa's achievements and says that the courts are all the same as clay which is absolute nonsense. If they were and judging by the French Open, Nadal would have won them all from age 18!?

This is what I said in the other thread, I hate this debate because it's as if Roger is the indisputable greatest player ever and fans of him just disregard other tennis greats' achievements and whoever offers up a different opinion is immediately wrong because of X, Y and Z. (Btw I'm not saying Nadal is the greatest ever, personally I think it's stupid to say who it is when you can't compare different eras and Federer and Nadal haven't even retired yet!)

Also you can discuss it, I think I've seen a thread somewhere on this forum for that.

Anyways, absolutely delighted for Rafa Such high quality tennis throughout that match especially by both players in the 2nd and 3rd sets. Thoroughly deserved though, what a comeback from injury!

SlickRic

anyone who says grass courts and hard courts are similar to clay courts obviously just doesn't like Rafa, and just wants to discount his achievements.

the man is a machine.

mickmackey1

GonzalezT1000 wrote: »

Nadal was excellent and deserved the win but Djokovic 2011 would have won this reasonably comfortably.

Yep, its amazing Djoko managed to reach that level in 2011, Nadal should have 16 slams by now.

MisterAnarchy

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The courts all play the same now. It's a fact. It might not have been that way back when Nadal was 18/19 but it is now. Serena was asked about it the other week, how hard is it to transition between clay, grass and hard like they have to over the Summer in a relatively short time. She said it's not difficult at all as there's barely any adjustment needed. The hard courts play like a fast clay court. Wimbledon is different for about 4 days and then the grass wears away and it's basically a clay court. Which is why Nadal always struggles the first few rounds and plays much much better as the tournament goes on.

It's the homogeneous surface that is killing the game. As you correctly said Serena even admitted it when asked about clay-hard transition, saying hardcourts nowadays is like playing fast clay.

From what I can see the ATF are bending over backwards to suit Nadal and defensive players.
Nadal gets the courts slowed everywhere, the higher bouncing fluffier heavier balls everywhere, his routine infringements of the rules of the game completely ignored....demands less HC and more clay at every opportunity....

I mean look what he said last night straight after winning .

''Yeah, is something that is I feel that I am very unlucky, that all the Masters Cup that I played was in indoor hard. Is a tougher surface for me to play well. Is not the day to say, but is something that I feel that is not fair. :rolleyes:

I like tennis and I like players that hit the ball relatively flat and play attacking aggressive tennis but that sort of tennis is dying out.
The slower courts and balls along with the better rackets and fitter players have made
the game about the defense not the offense.
If the biggest forehand hitting flat can't, on a percentage basis, hit the ball past the best defender....then the game is wrongly skewed for hard courts.

That suits Nadal's game to a tee.
Its preposterous that on a supposedly fast court he was receiving the serve 3 meters behind the baseline last night exactly the same as on clay...

Mousewar

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I like tennis and I like players that hit the ball relatively flat and play attacking aggressive tennis but that sort of tennis is dying out.
The slower courts and balls along with the better rackets and fitter players have made
the game about the defense not the offense.
If the biggest forehand hitting flat can't, on a percentage basis, hit the ball past the best defender....then the game is wrongly skewed for hard courts.

That suits Nadal's game to a tee.
Its preposterous that on a supposedly fast court he was receiving the serve 3 meters behind the baseline last night exactly the same as on clay...

Dead right. It's not even that we want all the courts sped up. We just want some bloody variety, rather than 98% of the courts suiting this defensive moonballer. Let players who attack at least have somewhere they can play their game.

MisterAnarchy

Mousewar wrote: »

Dead right. It's not even that we want all the courts sped up. We just want some bloody variety, rather than 98% of the courts suiting this defensive moonballer. Let players who attack at least have somewhere they can play their game.

Yes,variety is all that is needed but I dont see that happening unless there is a big doping scandal in the sport.
We dont have to go back to the days of Goran Ivanisovic and his 50 ace matches but the courts neeed to be sped up.

In the Federer - Robredo match ,Robredo was so deep when receiving Federer's serve that the linejudges had to keep moving to get out of his way ,it was crazy ,never saw anything like it before.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

In the Federer - Robredo match ,Robredo was so deep when receiving Federer's serve that the linejudges had to keep moving to get out of his way ,it was crazy ,never saw anything like it before.

I think it was in Australia this year I was watching Ryan Harrison's R1 match and he was literally running along the back wall during a rally. When it went to the camera angle you usually see, you couldn't see him at all

Granted that was on one of the smaller outside courts that didn't have as much room as the show courts but it was still ridiculous. That could just be him though.

MisterAnarchy

SlickRic wrote: »

anyone who says grass courts and hard courts are similar to clay courts obviously just doesn't like Rafa, and just wants to discount his achievements.

the man is a machine.

This is what Tipsarevic has to say about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw9sgLzg3EQ

Good article here on court speeds
http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Yep. They're all the same. The only real difference is that clay is a different surface to physically be on. You can slide more easily, but you can also lose your footing more easily. Therefor if you're a natural on clay, like Nadal, you have an advantage over players who aren't. But you don't really have to adapt your style of play between surfaces, you just have to get more comfortable with your movement on it.

mickmackey1

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Its preposterous that on a supposedly fast court he was receiving the serve 3 meters behind the baseline

Yeah I was hoping Djoko would serve underarm to put an end to that

GonzalezT1000

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Exactly, the points tell the whole story. Also Rafa had nothing to defend since RG so it's relatively easy for him to gain on Djokovic these past few months. He probably will be #1 by the year end, or into next year when he still has nothing to defend. It'll get interesting in March when he can't really gain any points.



It's not against the charter to discuss facts. As it is there's no facts RE: Nadal and "the other more cynical stuff" so there isn't really anything to discuss. There is a seperate thread to discuss the doping issue.





The courts all play the same now. It's a fact. It might not have been that way back when Nadal was 18/19 but it is now. Serena was asked about it the other week, how hard is it to transition between clay, grass and hard like they have to over the Summer in a relatively short time. She said it's not difficult at all as there's barely any adjustment needed. The hard courts play like a fast clay court. Wimbledon is different for about 4 days and then the grass wears away and it's basically a clay court. Which is why Nadal always struggles the first few rounds and plays much much better as the tournament goes on.



Where has 2011 Djokovic gone? Nadal played well, no doubt, but Djokovic was a bit pathetic at times. How many BP's did he miss? How many times was he 0-40 on Nadal's serve and not break? Shocking. Think he needs to really have a serious think about his priorities.

He doesn't look as fit to me, also if you look at the whip and ferocity on Djokovic's strokes now compared to say Indian Wells and Miami against Nadal in 2011 there is a very noticeable difference. Djokovic seemed to be lacking power last night, occasionally he found it but never consistently. Hopefully he reassesses his game as it would be it will be fairly boring if Nadal wins everything next year.

Gerry91

If they're all the same why was Nadal the clay GOAT whilst being terrible in comparison on Hard courts till 09/10?

Similarly why is Murray the best player on grass and terrible by comparison on clay?

Nadal has had to adjust his game to be the best hard courter in the world and he deserves some amount of credit

Hard may be slow in relation to what it was but you hit far more winners off it than FO and the bounce is far quicker and lower

I agree they've all gotten far too similar but they still play differently

Anyways, Nadal will go down as the best player I've watched play I think, Fed had all the shots in his arsenal but Nadal is just a freak, he gets every ball back and his forehand is just unstoppable. I don't think he ever loses concentration. He's unbeatable when on top form IMHO

Up to Murray and Djokovic to raise their games in 2014, if Nadal stays fit

Inquitus

They really need to sort out their drug testing regimen so Tennis can attempt to regain some credibility.

Gerry91

RosyLily wrote: »

13 Majors for Rafa. He's 1 away from Sampras and 4 away from Federer. Definitely can surpass Pete.

Will surpass pete by early June.

As was said he'll probably win all 4 next year if he stays fit

Murray can beat him on grass but as defending champion it'll be impossible to have that hunger again

All Nadal needs is to navigate his way through week one and he'll take some beating

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Gerry91 wrote: »

If they're all the same why was Nadal the clay GOAT whilst being terrible in comparison on Hard courts till 09/10?

Because by that point they'd slowed the hard courts down.

When the players are saying there's no real difference between the courts anymore I'm inclined to believe them.

Nadal is better than everyone else on clay because he grey up playing on it. Most if not all the Spanish players are better on clay than they are on other surfaces. Nadal is the same. He's one of the top players anyway so his natural ability on clay makes him unbeatable.

yerwanthere123

Gerry91 wrote: »

Will surpass pete by early June.

As was said he'll probably win all 4 next year if he stays fit

Murray can beat him on grass but as defending champion it'll be impossible to have that hunger again

All Nadal needs is to navigate his way through week one and he'll take some beating

Gross overestimation at this point.

MisterAnarchy

Gerry91 wrote: »

As was said he'll probably win all 4 next year if he stays fit

lol,only a few months ago people were saying Nadal would never win a hardcourt slam,now people are saying he will win all 4 slams in one year.

Nadal had a very easy run in the US open,to be honest he beat nobody to get to the final .

He hasnt been as impressive as alot of commentators are making out ,Djokovic played poorly for the 2 weeks as did Murray ,and Federer self destructed against Robredo.
If Djokovic had taken his oportunities in the third set of the final he would have been a big favourite to win the match.

It seems odd to me that Nadal has played a full hardcourt season with no strapping on his knees,it seems very odd .

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

It seems odd to me that Nadal has played a full hardcourt season with no strapping on his knees,it seems very odd .

It's certainly remarkable.

Gerry91

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

lol,only a few months ago people were saying Nadal would never win a hardcourt slam,now people are saying he will win all 4 slams in one year.

Nadal had a very easy run in the US open,to be honest he beat nobody to get to the final .

He hasnt been as impressive as alot of commentators are making out ,Djokovic played poorly for the 2 weeks as did Murray ,and Federer self destructed against Robredo.
If Djokovic had taken his oportunities in the third set of the final he would have been a big favourite to win the match.

It seems odd to me that Nadal has played a full hardcourt season with no strapping on his knees,it seems very odd .

He won Montreal and Cinci pulling up (bar close game v Djok at Montreal). He's unbeaten on hard courts. Who on earth else would have beaten him at us? I'm a Murray fan but Nadal would have demolished him. He'd concede about 5 games v fed

I'm not even rafas biggest fan but to say he'd an easy draw is harsh. He blew every one away. Gasquet and kohlschreiber are tricky players. He made his draw look easy

He'll win AO if he's fit. He'll walk French obviously we don't know from there as its so far away but he's the most determined player on tour, he'll bust his backside get the 4. Playing a fully determined Rafa is one of the most unenviable tasks in sport

As much as I love Murray he just can't match this

He's basically unbeatable now, why can't he be the same next year

Gerry91

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Gross overestimation at this point.

Well he was winning all round him before his injury aswell, until Djok started playing some of the best tennis I've ever seen. He was still undisputed number 2. I don't think Djok can do that again Nadal is now even stronger than before his lay off

As I said IF he stays fit. No way his form will drop yet he's one of the best competitors I've ever seen in any sport

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Gerry91 wrote: »

He's basically unbeatable now, why can't he be the same next year

Djokovic was unbeatable in 2011 and then all of a sudden he wasn't.

Gerry91

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Djokovic was unbeatable in 2011 and then all of a sudden he wasn't.

This is Nadal one of sports greatest competitors for years now. He won't just slip away, he's a freak

Djok was okay by comparison in 10 but just came really, really good for one year.

He's lost THREE matches this year. One was his first tournie in 7 months. I really don't think people are appreciating this as much as they should it is frankly a ridiculous stat

Gerry91

Come to think of it of all the tournaments he's entered this year he failed to make only one final. Just astonishing

As I say I'm not his greatest fan but such credit where it's due

MisterAnarchy

Gerry91 wrote: »

He'd concede about 5 games v fed

Nah,I think Federer would have given him a challenge ,he almost beat him in Cincinnati (fast court) last month where he made Nadal look very ordinary for a set and a half .