Is Roddick A Top 40 Player on Clay? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is Roddick A Top 40 Player on Clay?

mmcdonald
09-23-2007, 06:03 PM
I've been wondering this for awhile. Going on clay court seasons alone, is Roddick even a Top 50 player? That sounds ludicrous I know, but he hasn't made it past the 1st or 2nd round at the French in years. He hasn't beaten any really good players, and he hasn't won anything outside of Houston since '01 right?

I definitely know for 100% sure he's not a top 20 player on dirt, but honestly I'm not really sure he's a top 30 player either :scratch:

Action Jackson
09-23-2007, 06:05 PM
Top 3 in the world, he has won Houston 3 times and only the best win Houston.

RickDaStick
09-23-2007, 06:05 PM
Negative. There are more than 40 players that are better on clay.

Melvins
09-23-2007, 06:15 PM
Correction: He won St Poelten in 2003!

trixtah
09-23-2007, 06:18 PM
Top 3 in the world, he has won Houston 3 times and only the best win Houston.

lololol

TheBoiledEgg
09-23-2007, 06:22 PM
not even Kuerten, Nadal, Borg could win Houston.

OnyxRose
09-23-2007, 06:29 PM
Roddick hasn't even tried. I don't think he cares because he knows he'll never be good on it so he looks forward to the grass and U.S. hardcourt season.

mmcdonald
09-23-2007, 06:43 PM
Roddick hasn't even tried. I don't think he cares because he knows he'll never be good on it so he looks forward to the grass and U.S. hardcourt season.
I think thats part of it. He seemed to have better results on clay when he was a teenager.

tangerine_dream
09-23-2007, 07:07 PM
It's always nice to see trolls come out of the woodwork to post more Roddick threads. :yeah:

But in case you're not a troll, we've already discussed this: Roddick isn't a top 100 player without his serve nor is he a top 50 player on any surface because he sucks. So it's really nothing short of a miracle how he's managed to be a top ten player for the past several years with such little talent. Nobody can figure it out.

Top 3 in the world, he has won Houston 3 times and only the best win Houston.
George finally sees the light. :cool:

Action Jackson
09-23-2007, 07:10 PM
George finally sees the light. :cool:

Anyone who truly loves clay tennis knows that Houston is only just behind Roland Garros.

Action Jackson
09-23-2007, 07:17 PM
What do you mean "behind Roland Garros"? Houston is KING. :armed:

Oscar is the King, but we know Houston has a special place in the clay calendar and now they have moved it back to River Oaks, just makes the event even better.

Allure
09-23-2007, 07:34 PM
It's always nice to see trolls come out of the woodwork to post more Roddick threads. :yeah:

But in case you're not a troll, we've already discussed this: Roddick isn't a top 100 player without his serve nor is he a top 50 player on any surface because he sucks. So it's really nothing short of a miracle how he's managed to be a top ten player for the past several years with such little talent. Nobody can figure it out.


George finally sees the light. :cool:

When a thread criticizes Roddick, you always accuse the thread starter of being a ''troll'' and use sarcasm to respond. If you honestly disagree with their assessment of Andy's game, why don't you give reasonable explanations why you disagree. Oh, that's right. It's MTF, you can't be reasonable. :rolleyes:

tangerine_dream
09-23-2007, 07:44 PM
When a thread criticizes Roddick, you always accuse the thread starter of being a ''troll'' and use sarcasm to respond. If you honestly disagree with their assessment of Andy's game, why don't you give reasonable explanations why you disagree. Oh, that's right. It's MTF, you can't be reasonable. :rolleyes:
I'm reasonable with reasonable posters. With trolls, I give them what they deserve, a kick in the pants.

And yes, the OP is a troll because he's been registered since 2002 but only has 71 posts and out of the blue decided to post an unoriginal, beaten-to-death subject about Roddick's record on clay when clay season has been over and done with for a while now.

blosson
09-23-2007, 08:13 PM
Houston or St Poelten or whatever, at least Andy has more clay titles than some other players who were brought up on the surface.

Horatio Caine
09-23-2007, 08:17 PM
Top 3 in the world, he has won Houston 3 times and only the best win Houston.

But he "feels like the #2 player in the world, right now." :devil:

Action Jackson
09-23-2007, 08:18 PM
But he "feels like the #2 player in the world, right now." :devil:

And he is always in control, even on clay.

star
09-23-2007, 08:29 PM
Oscar is the King, but we know Houston has a special place in the clay calendar and now they have moved it back to River Oaks, just makes the event even better.

It's kind of :lol: that you think moving it back to River Oaks is an improvment. It was more of a people's tournament at Westside.

Of course, it's nice that the River Oaks crowd gets to sit under the live oaks and be convivial and that the girls and boys from St. John's and Kincaid get to be ball kids, but I wonder how comfortable just ordinary Houstonians of all ethnicities feel about braving River Oaks Blvd. and driving into the site. It's not an environment that some people feel comfortable in. I mean, do they even let jewish people into that club? Maybe now, but are there any black people in the club? Hispanics?

Well, maybe you were being sarcastic. I see that's a possibility. :) :)

yomeK
09-24-2007, 12:08 AM
Top 3 in the world, he has won Houston 3 times and only the best win Houston.

:help:

VolandriFan
09-24-2007, 12:27 AM
Andy was definitely a top 15-25 player on clay during his breakthrough years, but he lost it somewhere along the line. Still a top 40 player on clay of course, but he hasn't delivered on potential.

ChinoRios4Ever
09-24-2007, 12:29 AM
Lol

Allure
09-24-2007, 12:37 AM
Patrick McEnroe said he has a good game for clay so he must be top 10 at least.

mmcdonald
09-24-2007, 12:40 AM
I'm reasonable with reasonable posters. With trolls, I give them what they deserve, a kick in the pants.

And yes, the OP is a troll because he's been registered since 2002 but only has 71 posts and out of the blue decided to post an unoriginal, beaten-to-death subject about Roddick's record on clay when clay season has been over and done with for a while now.

If I've only made 71 posts in 5 years then how would I know it was unoriginal or beaten to death?

I said so because Roddick just won the tie with ease on carpet, and someone else had mentioned that the USTA will put the final on anything but clay, then I got thinking about his record on clay, then the thread.

mmcdonald
09-24-2007, 12:43 AM
Patrick McEnroe said he has a good game for clay so he must be top 10 at least.
I'd think with his kick serve and his forehand he'd be able to do damage on it.
Does he just not know how to construct points?

One thing about Roddick is that I think that its not so much that hes not talented, he just doesn't use it - its only against Federer where you see what his limitations are even at full capacity. But then again I guess you can say that with everyone these days.

World Beater
09-24-2007, 01:14 AM
roddick's effort on clay gets more pathetic with each passing year.

the positive is that roddick's been playing some of his best stuff of late. I hope he takes the indoor season and tmc seriously.

Allure
09-24-2007, 01:17 AM
I'd think with his kick serve and his forehand he'd be able to do damage on it.
Does he just not know how to construct points?

One thing about Roddick is that I think that its not so much that hes not talented, he just doesn't use it - its only against Federer where you see what his limitations are even at full capacity. But then again I guess you can say that with everyone these days.

Really...so all this time Roddick has kept his incredible skills from us and only bringing out his B game. Surely if he had used his talent by now, he must have at least 5 GSs.

anny12
09-24-2007, 04:57 AM
I've been coming to this site for awhile now, but only just started posting today. I have been curious about something for a while though. Why do so many people seem to hate Roddick? I've noticed there is more derision for him than any other player.

Allure
09-24-2007, 05:12 AM
I've been coming to this site for awhile now, but only just started posting today. I have been curious about something for a while though. Why do so many people seem to hate Roddick? I've noticed there is more derision for him than any other player.

Because

a) he's cocky and acts like a brat on court. Personally though I don't really care if he yells at umpires or throw rackets.

b) Ugly/one dimensional game. This is why I don't like him and I know a lot of people dislike him for the same reason. He is basically all serve and can hit a decent fh. I think he is boring to watch as opposed to an all court player like Federer or Safin or Nalbandian.

Kolya
09-24-2007, 05:50 AM
Hell no.

groundstroke
09-24-2007, 06:45 AM
Nope. He needs to work hard on clay.

Peoples
09-24-2007, 05:29 PM
If not, who are these 40 players ahead of him?

stebs
09-24-2007, 06:26 PM
If not, who are these 40 players ahead of him?

Federer, Nadal, Davydenko, Djokovic, Gonzalez, Ferrer, Robredo, Berdych, Ljubicic, Canas, Gasquet, Moya, Chela, Youzhny, Monaco, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Mathieu, Nieminen, Almagro, Starace, Simon, Volandri, Verdasco, Andreev, Wawrinka, Calleri, Acasuso.

There's 30. Another ten I guess you'd have to bring in more questionable players. I'd say all these players are better than the Rod on the red stuff.

Fumus
09-24-2007, 06:52 PM
Amazingly Andy has beaten Davydenko, Berdych, Coria, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Grosjean, Robredo, Gaudio...to name a few on clay.

Really though, who cares...yea he sucks on clay, not breaking news. What is good news, is that he's playing good tennis lately and he's a top 5 player on every other surface.

groundstroke
09-24-2007, 06:57 PM
He beat Coria on clay? Dammmmn.

Allure
09-24-2007, 10:14 PM
Amazingly Andy has beaten Davydenko, Berdych, Coria, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Grosjean, Robredo, Gaudio...to name a few on clay.

Really though, who cares...yea he sucks on clay, not breaking news. What is good news, is that he's playing good tennis lately and he's a top 5 player on every other surface.

What kind of clay?

Wannabeknowitall
09-24-2007, 11:11 PM
He might not even be top 75 on clay to be honest.

Davydenko is the same way on grass but both of these player are ranked in the top 5 in the world.

They're both trying but it's going to be tough to get better on those surfaces with their gamestyles.
If they don't they will not see themselves ranked any higher than they are now for the rest of their careers.

Fedex
09-24-2007, 11:58 PM
No.

Burrow
09-25-2007, 12:21 AM
Federer, Nadal, Davydenko, Djokovic, Gonzalez, Ferrer, Robredo, Berdych, Ljubicic, Canas, Gasquet, Moya, Chela, Youzhny, Monaco, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Mathieu, Nieminen, Almagro, Starace, Simon, Volandri, Verdasco, Andreev, Wawrinka, Calleri, Acasuso.

There's 30. Another ten I guess you'd have to bring in more questionable players. I'd say all these players are better than the Rod on the red stuff.

Typical you don't mention Safin who is definately better than Roddick on clay.

ReturnWinner
09-25-2007, 01:34 AM
He beat Coria on clay? Dammmmn.

yeah but Coria was far from his best and he had just returned of his doping suspension, , well i am going to resume his low level with the next: in his previous match he beat Wayne Arthurs 7-6(6) 7-5 :tape:

and Gaudio has been in horrible low form this year, no need to comment more about that, everyone must be aware of that :o

ReturnWinner
09-25-2007, 01:34 AM
Typical you don't mention Safin who is definately better than Roddick on clay.

yeah I agree Safin is better

ReturnWinner
09-25-2007, 01:35 AM
Anyway Roddick is decent on clay

Alex999
09-25-2007, 01:40 AM
What kind of clay?

Hard clay :angel:

Johnny Groove
09-25-2007, 01:49 AM
While we're at it, lets ask how good Davydenko is on grass. Or Gaudio on carpet. or RRH on hard, etc. etc. etc.

It really doesnt matter :lol:

World Beater
09-25-2007, 02:30 AM
Federer, Nadal, Davydenko, Djokovic, Gonzalez, Ferrer, Robredo, Berdych, Ljubicic, Canas, Gasquet, Moya, Chela, Youzhny, Monaco, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Mathieu, Nieminen, Almagro, Starace, Simon, Volandri, Verdasco, Andreev, Wawrinka, Calleri, Acasuso.

There's 30. Another ten I guess you'd have to bring in more questionable players. I'd say all these players are better than the Rod on the red stuff.

you forgot to mention the raccoon and the farmer :sad: :confused:

HKz
09-25-2007, 02:40 AM
So many ignorant people in here. Roddick is not a top 50 clay court player. There are many clay court specialists that aren't in the top 50 but can probably beat Roddick.

Seriously, why bother try to criticise Roddick? "He only has a serve." If you seriously want to argue about that, go bother Karlovic. Now saying he only has a serve and nothing else, then it seriously shows how incompetent you may be at really developing an understanding for the game. Why is there so much trash now then there was months ago? If Roddick was outgunned in every other aspect, how does he manage to keep on breaking people's service games? How did he manage to get Federer into 2 straight tie breaks at 2007 USO(we all know how tough it is to ace Federer)? I can keep going on, but seriously just leave or you get in the top 5 please.

mmcdonald
09-25-2007, 03:21 AM
So many ignorant people in here. Roddick is not a top 50 clay court player. There are many clay court specialists that aren't in the top 50 but can probably beat Roddick.

Seriously, why bother try to criticise Roddick? "He only has a serve." If you seriously want to argue about that, go bother Karlovic. Now saying he only has a serve and nothing else, then it seriously shows how incompetent you may be at really developing an understanding for the game. Why is there so much trash now then there was months ago? If Roddick was outgunned in every other aspect, how does he manage to keep on breaking people's service games? How did he manage to get Federer into 2 straight tie breaks at 2007 USO(we all know how tough it is to ace Federer)? I can keep going on, but seriously just leave or you get in the top 5 please.
its funny because I would say Karlovic has a better serve than Roddick, and is a better clay court player.

Its not that he "only has a serve" its just that he seems to lack clay court tennis skills once the points get going.

TennisShoulder
09-25-2007, 03:26 AM
St Poelten is a tournament that has a lot of credibility, so I congratulate him on winning that!

As for his achievements in winning Houston and his credentials as a top 40 player on clay?

:haha:

ReturnWinner
09-25-2007, 03:28 AM
St Poelten is a tournament that has a lot of credibility, so I congratulate him on winning that!

As for his achievements in winning Houston and his credentials as a top 40 player on clay?

:haha:

he trashed Davydenko in the final who was good by then and beat Beto Martin too so he deserves very much credit for that title

Allure
09-25-2007, 03:29 AM
With all the Houston titles he has, it's a wonder why he hasn't won RG yet.

jcempire
09-25-2007, 03:49 AM
Negative. There are more than 40 players that are better on clay.

I think he's Top 40 on Clay. But He alway not play his best tennis in FO

Action Jackson
09-25-2007, 04:43 AM
With all the Houston titles he has, it's a wonder why he hasn't won RG yet.

He peaks for Houston. His whole year revolves around that.

AsianSensation
09-25-2007, 05:03 AM
Roddick for RG 2008!

stebs
09-25-2007, 09:21 AM
While we're at it, lets ask how good Davydenko is on grass. Or Gaudio on carpet. or RRH on hard, etc. etc. etc.

It really doesnt matter :lol:

At this very moment Roddick is better on clay than Gaudio is on any surface. He's another issue but if you want to talk about best results then neither of them are TOTALLY awful. Gaudio got out of his group at the '05 TMC, of course he then ruined it by losing 0 and 0 but it's still an acheivement for an 'all clay' player. Roddick has seen the semi's of Rome has he? I may be making that up but I think it's true.

RRH is not really comprable to any of those guys is he, I mean Davydenko is top 5, Roddick is top 5, Gaudio is former slam winner fromer top 8.

Action Jackson
09-25-2007, 09:23 AM
Roddick has seen the semi's of Rome has he? I may be making that up but I think it's true.

2002 he did that.

Action Jackson
09-25-2007, 09:27 AM
Federer, Nadal, Davydenko, Djokovic, Gonzalez, Ferrer, Robredo, Berdych, Ljubicic, Canas, Gasquet, Moya, Chela, Youzhny, Monaco, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Mathieu, Nieminen, Almagro, Starace, Simon, Volandri, Verdasco, Andreev, Wawrinka, Calleri, Acasuso.

There's 30. Another ten I guess you'd have to bring in more questionable players. I'd say all these players are better than the Rod on the red stuff.

Ancic, Kohlschreiber. Söderling, Stepanek.

Doesn't matter though cause we know who owns Houston.

stebs
09-25-2007, 09:46 AM
Ancic, Kohlschreiber. Söderling, Stepanek.

Doesn't matter though cause we know who owns Houston.

Add Safin as had been said and that is 35 players who Roddick isn;t as good as so we can say he isn't a top 35 player on clay.

I mean people in this thread are saying it doesn't matter but it surely does if he wants to challenge the top 3. All of those guys are top 8 on all surfaces.

Action Jackson
09-25-2007, 09:53 AM
Add Safin as had been said and that is 35 players who Roddick isn;t as good as so we can say he isn't a top 35 player on clay.


I could say another 10 others, but results don't always indicate that as we know tennis is about match ups.

Boredo and Malisse are better claycourt players than Roddick, but they could be given a 3-0 15-0 headstart and still not beat Roddick.

I mean people in this thread are saying it doesn't matter but it surely does if he wants to challenge the top 3. All of those guys are top 8 on all surfaces.

To be honest, with the game having a fast court bias and yes I know I am right on this, when it comes to major events.

Roddick does well in these big events not on clay, cause there are enough of them. Like communism great in theory, but doesn't work out like that, does it.

Pea
09-25-2007, 10:24 AM
He's most likely a bottom..........40.

stebs
09-25-2007, 03:58 PM
I could say another 10 others, but results don't always indicate that as we know tennis is about match ups.

Boredo and Malisse are better claycourt players than Roddick, but they could be given a 3-0 15-0 headstart and still not beat Roddick.
I'd pick Robredo to win a five setter on clay despite having never even taken a set before against Roddick but certainly the matchup doesn't matter when judging clay prowess and weak field or no weak field Robredo has a clay AMS event and RG QF, a resume that Roddick will never have.

To be honest, with the game having a fast court bias and yes I know I am right on this, when it comes to major events.

Roddick does well in these big events not on clay, cause there are enough of them. Like communism great in theory, but doesn't work out like that, does it.

It depends what you mean really and no you are not automatically right.

I am undecided on the matter but many would argue that hardcourts are meant to be a neutral surface whilst clay and grass/indoors are specialist surfaces each on a different end of the spectrum. If this is the case then there is still a slight fastcourt bias with:

1 slam, 1 TMC + 2 AMS vs 1 slam, 3 AMS

I mean that is pretty close if you look at things that way and then the neutral surface has:

2 slams, 4 AMS

I won't get into a debate about this with you for the reason that I stated earlier which is that I am undecided on the matter and I won't enjoy arguing a point that I don't necessarily agree with anyway but personally I am more inclined to believe that hardcourts are neutral rather than super quick and obviously this is taking into account that hardcourts also have the spectrum and there are faster and slower ones.

Action Jackson
09-25-2007, 04:11 PM
I'd pick Robredo to win a five setter on clay despite having never even taken a set before against Roddick but certainly the matchup doesn't matter when judging clay prowess and weak field or no weak field Robredo has a clay AMS event and RG QF, a resume that Roddick will never have.

If that's the case then Zabaleta, LaLo, Horna and Hanescu then would be better than Roddick on clay.

It depends what you mean really and no you are not automatically right.

It's very clear what I mean and if you are going to believe that hardcourts are neutral, then we aren't going to agree. It's like 100 percent objectivity, it doesn't exist and neither does a neutral surface, cause there is always going to be a form of bias no matter how hard they try and get rid of that bias.

11 out of 15 of the big events and that includes the TMC are on faster surfaces or more suited to the type of game Roddick plays, therefore he does he really need to peak on clay besides Houston.

stebs
09-25-2007, 06:02 PM
If that's the case then Zabaleta, LaLo, Horna and Hanescu then would be better than Roddick on clay.
Well obviously if something is too close to call then having a look to see who has won the matchup is not a bad thing but Roddick beat Robredo on clay one time so it's not an issue anyway.

It's very clear what I mean and if you are going to believe that hardcourts are neutral, then we aren't going to agree. It's like 100 percent objectivity, it doesn't exist and neither does a neutral surface, cause there is always going to be a form of bias no matter how hard they try and get rid of that bias.

11 out of 15 of the big events and that includes the TMC are on faster surfaces or more suited to the type of game Roddick plays, therefore he does he really need to peak on clay besides Houston.

I can't believe the bolded part of this reply, I explicitly stated that I didn't agree with this but I was telling you why it can be argued and yet you still give me this. I am just showing you that there are other viewpoints and it is a little narrow minded to say,

"yes I know I am right about this"

when there is a fairly strong counter-argument and again, this doesn't mean I agree with it.

As for the 11 events on faster surfaces well I have told you why that is only your view and if you class slow hardcourts, indoors, grass, fast hardcourts and all other surfaces that aren't clay as fast then of course you are correct. I mean Djokovic has a game which I would say is equally suited to slow or fast surfaces and he has had his best results on varying hardcourts, go figure. Again it's juts a point of view and you can disagree if you please but remember I am bringing another argument into the equation to show some perspective and I have no intention of jumping on one viewpoint and defending it with my life.

Action Jackson
09-26-2007, 08:14 AM
Well obviously if something is too close to call then having a look to see who has won the matchup is not a bad thing but Roddick beat Robredo on clay one time so it's not an issue anyway.

I can't believe the bolded part of this reply, I explicitly stated that I didn't agree with this but I was telling you why it can be argued and yet you still give me this. I am just showing you that there are other viewpoints and it is a little narrow minded to say,

"yes I know I am right about this"

when there is a fairly strong counter-argument and again, this doesn't mean I agree with it.

As for the 11 events on faster surfaces well I have told you why that is only your view and if you class slow hardcourts, indoors, grass, fast hardcourts and all other surfaces that aren't clay as fast then of course you are correct. I mean Djokovic has a game which I would say is equally suited to slow or fast surfaces and he has had his best results on varying hardcourts, go figure. Again it's juts a point of view and you can disagree if you please but remember I am bringing another argument into the equation to show some perspective and I have no intention of jumping on one viewpoint and defending it with my life.

If all of a sudden you think the bias to fast courts in major events has been readdressed since the time has game started. Strong counter-argument, well if people believe hardcourts are neutral, then that's funny.

Hardcourts aren't a neutral surface, so that takes out the majority of events, then you have grass and carpet which are faster surfaces. No matter how slow a hardcourt is, it won't be slower than clay.

Indoor carpet, hardcourts and grass are naturally faster than clay, this is not news. I have already explained many times why there is a bias to faster surfaces in the major events in relation to Roddick specifically in this case.

stebs
09-26-2007, 04:17 PM
If all of a sudden you think the bias to fast courts in major events has been readdressed since the time has game started. Strong counter-argument, well if people believe hardcourts are neutral, then that's funny.

Hardcourts aren't a neutral surface, so that takes out the majority of events, then you have grass and carpet which are faster surfaces. No matter how slow a hardcourt is, it won't be slower than clay.

Indoor carpet, hardcourts and grass are naturally faster than clay, this is not news. I have already explained many times why there is a bias to faster surfaces in the major events in relation to Roddick specifically in this case.

GWH I'm sure you hear enough on here that you are a great poster and for sure it's the truth. I certainly wouldn't like to go toe to toe with you on tennis knowledge but you show ZERO objectivity here and if that's the way you want to be then fine but it's your opinion and not fact.

Just because hardcourts are faster than clay how does that make them a fastcourt? I have given the possible arguments and this reply has no relation to it. You just stae your opinion like fact and move on. I mean hardcourts are clearly the middle ground of the surfaces when they are laid out and if you prefer slower courts that's fine but if you get a spectrum it looks like this:

Clay---Hardcourts---Grass----Indoors

It's simple really and there is a hardcourt bias I agree with you on that but a fastcourt bias? Of course if you perceive everything but the slowest of surfaces to be a fastcourt you're going to think that but of the four surfaces clay does okay and grass and indoor fans have more reason to be irritated than clay fans and yes hardcourts have too many tournaments but no it is not an absolute truth that hardcourts=fastcourts. Simple as that, it's your opinion mate, nothing more, nothing less.

Action Jackson
09-26-2007, 04:43 PM
GWH I'm sure you hear enough on here that you are a great poster and for sure it's the truth. I certainly wouldn't like to go toe to toe with you on tennis knowledge but you show ZERO objectivity here and if that's the way you want to be then fine but it's your opinion and not fact.
.

Like I said and I will continue to say. There is no such thing as 100 %objectivity. It's a flawed concept cause each of us have our own experiences and they impact on the judgements and views we make, the only that varies is to what degree this takes. So this is why the whole objectivity line doesn't work.

Just because hardcourts are faster than clay how does that make them a fastcourt? I have given the possible arguments and this reply has no relation to it. You just stae your opinion like fact and move on. I mean hardcourts are clearly the middle ground of the surfaces when they are laid out and if you prefer slower courts that's fine but if you get a spectrum it looks like this:

It's not a question of what I prefer. You believe there is a such thing as a middle ground when it comes to court surface and I don't. I have explained why and it goes back to the similar point in objectivity, because there are going to be players disadvantaged on whatever court surface is laid down for different reasons. Then there are the climatic conditions of particular venue and choice of balls that help as well, but you know this already.

Clay---Hardcourts---Grass----Indoors

It's simple really and there is a hardcourt bias I agree with you on that but a fastcourt bias? Of course if you perceive everything but the slowest of surfaces to be a fastcourt you're going to think that but of the four surfaces clay does okay and grass and indoor fans have more reason to be irritated than clay fans and yes hardcourts have too many tournaments but no it is not an absolute truth that hardcourts=fastcourts. Simple as that, it's your opinion mate, nothing more, nothing less.

Fact players that have clay as their best surfaces are the ones that have greater improvement and manage to do on faster surfaces at a greater ratio for the very simple reason is that the way the game is catered to doing well on faster surfaces and yes clay is the only slow surface.

Examples in their primes off the top of my head are Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Muster, Nadal, Corretja, Moya, Kuerten and Ferrero who had to adapt their games to have success on hardcourts, indoors and grass (faster surfaces) than vice versa. They were/are in the position to guy higher in the rankings they had to start doing well off the clay in the major events and what's they did.

The pressure isn't the same for the fast court players to do so, cause they have enough major events to get their points in without having to worry about improving their games on clay. That concept isn't hard to understand.

So we going to keep going around in circles or what? You think hardcourts are neutral and middle of the road and I don't and I have explained why I don't see it like that.

stebs
09-26-2007, 04:59 PM
Fact players that have clay as their best surfaces are the ones that have greater improvement and manage to do on faster surfaces at a greater ratio for the very simple reason is that the way the game is catered to doing well on faster surfaces and yes clay is the only slow surface.

Well the only way to judge the pace is by the pace of the other surfaces and as there are four as I stated then hardcourts are the second slowest and how else are you going to judge it?

Examples in their primes off the top of my head are Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Muster, Nadal, Corretja, Moya, Kuerten and Ferrero who had to adapt their games to have success on hardcourts, indoors and grass (faster surfaces) than vice versa. They were/are in the position to guy higher in the rankings they had to start doing well off the clay in the major events and what's they did.

As you stated previously, it's always been like this and of course indoors and HC are similar and these days grass requires different skills but still I see your point. However, it's not like it was ever different to this and it's the way it is, it's only biased if you think the way it should be is different from how it has ever been and that's your opinion fair enough.

The pressure isn't the same for the fast court players to do so, cause they have enough major events to get their points in without having to worry about improving their games on clay. That concept isn't hard to understand.
The concept isn't hard but the same goes for what I said earlier about relativity and yes clay is slower relative to the other surfaces but then hardcourts are slower relative to two of the three other main surfaces and yet you still call it a fastcourt so we're back to going in circles.

So we going to keep going around in circles or what? You think hardcourts are neutral and middle of the road and I don't and I have explained why I don't see it like that.
I never said my opinion on the subject as you shoud know, I was being objective and I can look at it from both ways without stating my opinion I hope unless you have a problem with that. I am trying to show you that things can easily be seen from another viewpoint and single mindedness is not always the right answer.

Action Jackson
09-26-2007, 05:11 PM
Well the only way to judge the pace is by the pace of the other surfaces and as there are four as I stated then hardcourts are the second slowest and how else are you going to judge it?

Well three out of the four major playing surfaces are fast, just cause hardcourt is slower than carpet or grass, does not mean it's a slow surface.

As you stated previously, it's always been like this and of course indoors and HC are similar and these days grass requires different skills but still I see your point. However, it's not like it was ever different to this and it's the way it is, it's only biased if you think the way it should be is different from how it has ever been and that's your opinion fair enough.

It's biased then and it's biased now, but these players have dealt with and able to show what they can do.

The concept isn't hard but the same goes for what I said earlier about relativity and yes clay is slower relative to the other surfaces but then hardcourts are slower relative to two of the three other main surfaces and yet you still call it a fastcourt so we're back to going in circles.

Yes, hardcourts are still fast courts and I have explained why, so we are going to go around in circles. If they played on green clay like they used to which is very different from the red, then the hardcourts would be closer to the the middle even then still closer to fast courts than they are to slow.

I never said my opinion on the subject as you shoud know, I was being objective and I can look at it from both ways without stating my opinion I hope unless you have a problem with that. I am trying to show you that things can easily be seen from another viewpoint and single mindedness is not always the right answer.

I do have a problem with using the objective line for the reasons I stated earlier about being a flawed concept. Not saying at all how I came to my conclusions is objective, because that would be hypocritical.

It's not like I haven't looked at the other side. I just don't rate it and have said why I don't rate it, it's just like people trying to convince hardcourts are neutral and even you are agreeing that the game always been biased to faster surfaces. So which one is then?

stebs
09-26-2007, 05:22 PM
Well three out of the four major playing surfaces are fast, just cause hardcourt is slower than carpet or grass, does not mean it's a slow surface.
Yes, hardcourts are still fast courts and I have explained why, so we are going to go around in circles. If they played on green clay like they used to which is very different from the red, then the hardcourts would be closer to the the middle even then still closer to fast courts than they are to slow.
I understand your opinion but I don't understand why. I already said in my last post the only way to judge in byt the relative pace in comparison with other court speeds, this shows HC to be 2/4 in terms of speed. How do you judge the speed another way?

I mean the green clay bit makes perfect sense and that is a fine thing to say but about saying you've explained why, I must've missed that bit and I can't find it, can you go over it again.

It's not like I haven't looked at the other side. I just don't rate it and have said why I don't rate it, it's just like people trying to convince hardcourts are neutral and even you are agreeing that the game always been biased to faster surfaces. So which one is then?

I never agreed it was always biased I just said that IF you take what you say to be true then you HAVE to accept it was alwasy biased and if you do that then what are you using as a starting point to show that it's biased?

Action Jackson
09-26-2007, 05:35 PM
I understand your opinion but I don't understand why. I already said in my last post the only way to judge in byt the relative pace in comparison with other court speeds, this shows HC to be 2/4 in terms of speed. How do you judge the speed another way?

I mean the green clay bit makes perfect sense and that is a fine thing to say but about saying you've explained why, I must've missed that bit and I can't find it, can you go over it again.


All it shows is that hardcourts are slower on average than grass or carpet. This does not mean that it's a slow surface. How many times do I have to say that?

If you are so objective, then you should be able to understand why.

I never agreed it was always biased I just said that IF you take what you say to be true then you HAVE to accept it was alwasy biased and if you do that then what are you using as a starting point to show that it's biased?

Three of the 4 Slams used to be on grass. The biases started then, once the hardcourts were introduced they weren't slow and neither were the grass or indoor events.

Yes, they have tried for surface homogenisation, but it has not changed the fact that the games major events are on faster surfaces and the examples of the players that I used some part and some present that had clay as a base and had to adjust their games to do well on the faster surfaces to reach the elite level indicate this.

What are you actually trying to prove? Roddick doesn't need to improve on clay cause of the reasons I have stated above, his game is good enough to do well on those fast courts, that he does not need good clay results to be among the elite.

stebs
09-26-2007, 05:40 PM
All it shows is that hardcourts are slower on average than grass or carpet. This does not mean that it's a slow surface. How many times do I have to say that?

If you are so objective, then you should be able to understand why.

This doesn't really answer my question which is about how else do you measure the speed other than relative to the other court speeds. It's still there, unanswered.

Three of the 4 Slams used to be on grass. The biases started then, once the hardcourts were introduced they weren't slow and neither were the grass or indoor events.
Well the hardcourts were slower and in times past they were more toward the middle when Sampras stayed back on first serves on hardcourts often and watch a grass match the contrast was not small although I will certainly agree that there is a bigger gap between clay and hard than hard and grass.

What are you actually trying to prove? Roddick doesn't need to improve on clay cause of the reasons I have stated above, his game is good enough to do well on those fast courts, that he does not need good clay results to be among the elite.

My top 5 on each surface thread covers this issue and as it happens Roddick's clay results hold him back a great deal because the top 3 are good on all surfaces.

What am I trying to prove? Nothing at all, just debating. I'm interested in your views, nothing wrong with that is there?

R.Federer
09-26-2007, 06:15 PM
Hard to know how to answer this question. If you look purely at results on clay this year or over the career, I think he might get in to the Top 40, not sure though. However as Yaya said if you pick 39 other players who are apparently better than him on clay (have better results), it's not clear that they could beat him necessarily.