Originally Posted by JeNn
Not really, but then again that's your debating style, atleast when addressing me, so I have come to accept it.
Just for you I will put it on.
I am quite capable of a different appreciation of a player's style than what you have. Yes Nalbandian can finish points easily, but so can Mantilla, but that is not how they usually go about winning points. And yes, grinder is in common usage a less than flattering term.
I think I'm more than aware of Mantilla's game and oh I forgot he actually he has hit a winner in a match, ah thanks for reminding me.
Nonsense. An attacking player can still be a grinder. As I said it's more than just game-style. Courier is probably one of the best grinders i have ever seen, regardless of the fact that he was attacking.
Muster was more of a grinder than Courier ever was. If Courier is considered a great grinder in your eyes you need to watch more tennis.
It's not a ready made excuse because the most important thing at RG is to be able to handle those five setters or even long 3 and 4 setters in the first week and still produce your best in the later rounds. If Safin and Federer can't do that, then they do not have one of the necessary attributes to win RG and that's that. There is a difference between an explanation for a defeat and an excuse.
there is a difference between an explanation and an excuse, this is so revealing and at least you are not using stats as the sole research for this conclusion. Why do you think that I am unaware of what happens with tennis on clay especially at RG? It's an excuse, because if they are not ready physically and mentally to play as long as it takes it's their own fault for lack of preparation and not peaking at the right moment.
Nalbandian is a grinder and on that day he won because he was more consistent and mentally tough than Safin was. I don't think there is any doubt that Safin did not play his best that day either. Was Safin drained from his two 5 setters and was this the reason he played below par? I'm not sure but it can't have helped.
It's not the fact that Nalbandian is a grinder and that is irrelevant. Nalbandian played well and on that day was better than Safin and that's why he won, as for what happened previously, that comes down to preparation plus mental and physcial reserves.
Not if they play their best IMO although they can certainly make life tougher for them than they might on fast courts and of course beat them if they are not at their best. The difference is that when they don't play their best on fast courts they can still get by, if they are below their best on clay they are more likely to be saying goodbye.
You are trying to tell me that there aren't more players capable on clay of beating Federer and Safin than on faster surfaces? If you are, then you are kidding yourself and don't seriously watch tennis properly. How many tournaments do you see on TV that are played on clay besides RG?
You just answered your own question, but I wonder if you can see that.