Can 2 Slams be worth more than 3? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Can 2 Slams be worth more than 3?

Ace Tracker
11-20-2002, 01:31 AM
from the Tennis Mailbag, by Jon Wertheim

The ATP Tour has a multitude of young, talented players, such as Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, Roger Federer, Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten and Tommy Haas. Who do you think has the most potential to be the greatest player of his generation? Which player will be the greatest of his generation?
—Josh Silverman, Blacksburg, Va.

Thanks for the making the distinction, because they really are two different questions. Strictly on potential, I'd cast my vote for Safin. He hits the ball beautifully; with the exception of Roddick, he hits the hardest serve; and he doesn't really have a weak surface. If he could ever get his inner circuitry wired right, he'd retire with a trunkload of Slams. It still could happen, but right now it looks as though Hewitt will be the greatest of this generation. More than any other player you've mentioned, he has filled the breach. Guga, of course, has more Slams to date, but I'd have to say that 1 Wimbledon title + 1 U.S. Open title > 3 French Open titles.

(OK, that was just an excuse to use the ">" character, which doesn't get much play on the keyboard.)

Seriously, in addition to being a good deal younger the Kuerten, Hewitt has also spent more time at No. 1. I should note that there is still time for a lot of New Balls to make their respective moves before the home stretch. (Remember that Agassi didn't win his first Slam until he was 22.) But right now, Hewitt has a sizable lead.

What do you guys think? Is the math right and 1Wimbledon+1USOpen > 3French Opens? Please be objective and try not to base your opinions only to your fave's benefit...

TennisHack
11-20-2002, 01:35 AM
How?!?! is one Wimbly title and 1 US Open title greater than 3 French Opens? Because Hewitt won Slams on two different surfaces and Guga only on one?!

:rolleyes: Yeah, because the structure of the Slams are so different between the Australian, the French, Wimbly, and the US. It's not like, you know, a player has to win 7 matches to win each or anything :rolleyes:

Sounds to me like another reason to "look down" on good clay-court players.

ys
11-20-2002, 02:18 PM
Don't you think that finding Guga in the list of "young and talented" players is bit of a stretch?

Chloe le Bopper
11-20-2002, 02:43 PM
Ys - no more than Guga being a "new ball" after having won a slam 3 years earlier, was a stretch ;)

As for the question - Guga has not only won 3 of them, he has succesfully defended his crown.

This is clearly a failed attempt, to take credit away from a clay great :p

Nice try John.

Chloe le Bopper
11-20-2002, 02:44 PM
I'd also like to personally slap that person for putting Andy on their list over other people :p

Lee
11-20-2002, 02:52 PM
YS, if you think Guga is talented a bit stretch, I doubt how many matches you have watched Guga played.

And I agree with Becca, Mr. Hewitt has still to successfully defend his GS title.

Scotso
11-20-2002, 03:01 PM
Well personally I think that it shows more ability to win slams on different surfaces, but I wouldn't trade 3 for 2.

Chloe le Bopper
11-20-2002, 03:04 PM
leecal - I think he was refering to Guga as being "young" as being a stretch.

Saying he shouldn't be in the same group as the guys under 24.

ys
11-20-2002, 03:13 PM
Well, I am not sure. Guga is a great claycourter. Perhaps Top 5 in Open Era. But even with his hardcourt Masters title, and indoors Masters Cup title, he is still a one trick pony, because of his inability to get further than QF in non-clay GSs. Like it or not, that's one' s performance at Grand Slams that matters. In my book, Hewitt has already passed Kuerten, Kafelnikov and Rafter on greatness scale.

ys
11-20-2002, 03:17 PM
leecal - I think he was refering to Guga as being "young" as being a stretch.

Thank you, Becca, for figuring that out.. Given that Guga is just 2.5 years younger than Kafelnikov, and Kafelnikov is as good as retired, calling him "young" is almost an insult to his achievements. In fact, given his style and a degree of reliance on his stamina and speed, I don't expect him to be anywhere close to the top of the game in 3, perhaps even in 2 years.

joanbalcells
11-20-2002, 03:28 PM
no 3 is greater than 2. always. only when they're equal should they look at the break-down.

can't stand it when people say that agassi's achievements surpass sampras, just because he won all four slams rather than just 3.

slam assessment should be done on quantity, not subjective stuff about quality. we already hear that AO+FO is not equal to WB+US. the tournaments may differ in exposure, popular imagination, history, but they're too close in stature to make these sort of distinctions.

ys
11-20-2002, 04:06 PM
Of course, AO+FO is less than WB+US. Just look at who was winning AO or FO, say, last 5-6 years. Korda,Johansson, Costa, Moya. They all are good players, but nowhere close to being elite players. While all WB and US winners were clearly elite. In terms of prestige, AO or FO is nowhere near W or US. Like it or not.

Lee
11-20-2002, 04:24 PM
Hmm... May be we should not count those AO & FO titles that Sampras, Bjorg, Connors, etc. win.

No wonder Safin didn't win last year AO. May be he don't want to put in those non-elite player list.

It's better Hewitt don't try to win 2003 AO too.

RogiFan
11-20-2002, 04:47 PM
:) I agree w Hackie and leecal. If RG is worth less than Wimby and USO, why does it have the same # of points then???!!!:p

Besides, this is a dumb statement from JW...!!! and he does say dumb things now and then!

Actually I find RG and Wimby the most interesting slams, given the surface. USO is the least interesting with the most # of American players.

Murkofan
11-20-2002, 04:54 PM
I think it's all subjective, really.

To me, winning slams on two different surfaces (with the exception of the US and AO, which are pretty similar) signifies more diverse ability. But like Scott said, I wouldn't trade 3 for 2.

Providing he's able to get rested and healthy again, I think Guga can win the FO a couple more times. I don't see him winning any other slams. Lleyton can certainly also win a few more slams. As far as determining who ends up having had the better career, we'll have to wait until they both retire. :p

joanbalcells
11-20-2002, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by y_s
Of course, AO+FO is less than WB+US. Just look at who was winning AO or FO, say, last 5-6 years. Korda,Johansson, Costa, Moya. They all are good players, but nowhere close to being elite players. While all WB and US winners were clearly elite. In terms of prestige, AO or FO is nowhere near W or US. Like it or not.

you provide a circular argument i'm afraid.

WB+US are better because elite players won them

these players are elite because they won US + WB

WB + US are elite because elite players won them

these players are elite because they won US + WB

WB + US are elite because elite players won them
these players are elite because they won US + WB

WB + US are elite because elite players won them
these players are elite because they won US + WB

WB + US are elite because elite players won them
these players are elite because they won US + WB

WB + US are elite because elite players won them
these players are elite because they won US + WB

WB + US are elite because elite players won them
these players are elite because they won US + WB

WB + US are elite because elite players won them
these players are elite because they won US + WB

WB + US are elite because elite players won them
these players are elite because they won US + WB

WB + US are elite because elite players won them
these players are elite because they won US + WB

WB + US are elite because elite players won them
these players are elite because they won US + WB

WB + US are elite because elite players won them

joanbalcells
11-20-2002, 05:03 PM
someone on WTA world was saying that Anna's losses to Anna Smashnova were not that surprising because Smashnova has risen up the rankings this year.

well, how did anna smashnova rise up the ranking this year? partly by beating Anna K to win those titles.

anna smashnova was not expected to beat anna k at the time. you can always look back and justify once the victor has improved in the ranks.

Chloe le Bopper
11-20-2002, 05:32 PM
Besides, this is a dumb statement from JW...!!! and he does say dumb things now and then!

I read him because he is entertaining at points, and I didn't find his book too bad.

But yes, he does say stupid things at times.

I noticed conveniently, that after sticking his neck out for Ferrero in his predictions this year, that I can count the number one times on one hand he's bothered to talk about him again.

I also have noticed he is biased against "clay courters". Which is not a surprised - much of the media, and even some fans, are quite ignorant about clay vs hardcourt.

I love how players who cushion their rankings with hardcourt points aren't critisized (even when they are number one), but ones who apparently cushion their rankings with clay points (even though they won more matches on hardcourts) are.

TheBoiledEgg
11-20-2002, 06:19 PM
I'd still have 3 Slam titles rather than two
but Hewitt will win alot more than Guga in his career ( i hope not though)

Look at the US Champions
every single one has been World #1 at some stage since the early 70's

ys.... Moya is on a different level to Costa/Johansson and Korda.

ys
11-20-2002, 06:27 PM
OK, to put it simple - when was the last time that a claycourter won a Slam on another surface? Hardcourt specialists do win RG from time to time ( Agassi, Kafelnikov, I expect Safin to win it one day. Look at most of fastcourters of recent time - Sampras, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Rafter, Safin - every single one of them ( with exception of Goran, and we know that he is an exception in about everything ) is a big threat on at least one another surface. Claycourters - Moya, Costa, Kuerten, Muster, Bruguera - what do they have in common? Right. The only Slam they've ever won is RG. Other promiment claycourters of recent times - Corretja, Ferrero - what did they manage to achieve in other Slams? Clay is the surface that differs most from any other surface. It is like a different sport. Samrpas, Agassi and Rafter made semis or better on a;; 4 Slams. Safin and Kafelnikov - semis or better on all but one , and even in that one they reached quarters. What about claycourters? From what I know, the only player from the list above that reached semis of Slam other than RG is Moya, right?

ys
11-20-2002, 06:31 PM
Eggy, I agree about Moya. He can play other surfaces. But he won't win Slams on them.

TheBoiledEgg
11-20-2002, 06:37 PM
you're right Carlos made final of AUS Open in 1997 and Semis of US in 1998.

other than that i don't recall others certainly not in last 20 years.
(I think Borg was the last clay courter who won elsewhere)

Even Chang got caught up in that circle by winning the French 1st he couldnt win anywhere else.

Most one slam wonders do come from those who win at RG.

But I still prefer the clay court game.

Murkofan
11-20-2002, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Rebecca


I love how players who cushion their rankings with hardcourt points aren't critisized (even when they are number one), but ones who apparently cushion their rankings with clay points (even though they won more matches on hardcourts) are.


It's hard not to cushion your ranking with hardcourt points, as most of the tournaments are on hardcourts.

In the case of Lleyton, yes, his clay results weren't spectacular this year. (But that's only because he drew Moya in the early rounds of two of the MS clay events. ;) :p) If I remember correctly (and this is coming from memory, as I'm in school at the moment and blowing off my assignment) Lleyton lost in either the 1st/2nd or 2nd/3rd round of Monte Carlo and one of the other clay MS to Moya; in the QFs of another clay MS to Safin; in the SFs of Barcelona to Gaudio; and in the 4th round of the FO to Canas. Not real great, but there have certainly been #1s with worse results. *cough*Pete*cough*

However, last year on clay (still off the top of my head) he got to the SFs of Hamburg, helped Australia win in Dusseldorf, and reached the QFs of the FO where he got beat by Ferrero. I don't remember how he did in the other clay court events that season, except that he didn't play Monte Carlo.

After winning the US Open in 2001, Lleyton's next best performance in a slam that year was reaching the QFs at Roland Garros. In 2002, his best performance in a slam was winning Wimbledon. But anyways, my point is just that his points don't come from one surface.

Moving on to the media being biased against clay courters: I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that (for a lot of us, anyways) the US media is our main source of information, and as clay isn't the best surface of most of the American players, it doesn't get a lot of attention. In recent years, unless DH is playing well, a lot of time there isn't an American man in the 2nd week of the FO. I doubt that reports say to themselves "clay doesn't mean as much as hardcourts, so let's just ignore it." They simply have an obligation to report what is newsworthy and interesting to the majority of Americans. Which generally isn't the fact that two Spaniards are playing in the final of a clay tournament.

But I digress.

Btw, Becs, before you think I was attacking you for attacking Hewitt, I realize you weren't doing that. :p And please pardon me if I missed the point of your message or was reading something that you didn't write; as I mentioned earlier, I'm at school at the moment, and it's a little hard to stay entirely focused on the subject at hand. Though Lord knows I'm trying. I go to school with idiots. But I digress again.

joanbalcells
11-20-2002, 07:29 PM
clay is distinctive, but it's possible to be distinctive and equal.

"tennis" is more than just fast court play. your argument would only make sense if it actually requires less tennis skill to win at RG or even the AO. it doesn't require less skills, it requires a different skill emphasis i.e. (and this is a generalisation) variety of spin, touch play, tactical awareness to set up point-winning opportunities. it also requires mental and physical strength to be prepared to runa lot, and deal with your good shots being retrieved.

it just so happens that clay does not dominate the tour. if it did, the perception of clay would be different. everybody would develop skills and strengths suited to clay, and the winner of wimbledon or the US Open would be regarded as marginal, even though they'd have proponents saying "they play better tennis".

i'm not saying clay courters are better or less skilled than faster court players. they merely employ different skills, skills which constitute to the definition of "tennis".

i, too, think it's impressive to win slams (or perform well) on more than one surface. my greatest respect goes to players that play well on both grass and clay, because it show's a lot of versatility and dual adaptation. rebounce ace is not substantially different to cement. and the pace of hardcourts is not that different to grass actually - just that the bounce is lower and less predictable on grass, and grass is not that dissimilar to indoor carpet environments.

because clay and grass are the extreme surfaces (one favouring defence, the other attack), and because hard/rebound ace also favour attack/aggression slightly more than defence, it is understandable that (a) clay court players find it harder to be multi-surface than hardcourt/grass/rebound ace/carpet players (b) most players build a game which will bring them maximum success (dollars/trophies) and hence emphasise attacking skills, be it from the net or baseline.

the top/elite players are "top/elite" becuase of trophys/high ranking: both of which are more likely to come to non-clay players. hence clay players are seen as marginal, one dimensional, and their tournaments produce "surprise", non-elite champions. hence, their tournaments are unworthy.

if clay-players play such an inferior and less skilled style, why didn't the "elite" players - sampras, edberg, becker, rafter, stich, ivanisevic - dominate these inferior players and win roland garros? simple, they lack the skills.

:rolleyes:

Scotso
11-20-2002, 07:32 PM
Clay does take talent to win on, and most players who win it usually have been groomed for the surface.

I do think that it is unlikely Hewitt will win at the French, he just doesn't have the firepower for it yet, but that could change.

The only people on the tour right now that I could see winning slams on all of the different surfaces ( baring those of course that have done it - Agassi :rolleyes: ) are Nalbandian, Safin, Ferrero, and Robredo. Safin would do it if he had his head on consistantly, but that's been a problem for a lot of the Russians. Nalbandian is obviously a great claycourter and this year he showed his talent, albeit with a little luck, on the faster surfaces. Robredo was raised on the hardcourts and shows great potential on every surface - sometimes I think he looks at his worst on clay. Robredo, however, seems to have little confidence in his ability. Lastly, I think, would be Ferrero who obviously has the game to win on clay and hard. His head is sometimes questionable, but in my opinion, he will do it. Wimbledon then, is the tossup in the equation. It is merely my opinion, but I do believe that if Juan Carlos continues to continuously improve his serve and his net gave as he has been doing, he could be, although a distant one, a possibility to take the Wimbledon title.

Other than those the only person that I think could do it would be Hewitt, but he hasn't shown that he really wants to beef up his game enough for the French Open. I do think he will win the Australian, maybe soon, and then, as he had a renewed drive to keep #1 this year, he will also have a renewed desire to win at all four slams. Whether or not he can do it, I don't know.

Murkofan
11-20-2002, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by joanbalcells

if clay-players play such an inferior and less skilled style, why didn't the "elite" players - sampras, edberg, becker, rafter, stich, ivanisevic - dominate these inferior players and win roland garros? simple, they lack the skills.

:rolleyes:

Well, I don't know much about Becker, Edberg, and Stich, as they were before my time, but I personally wouldn't call Rafter and Ivanisevic "elite" players. But anyways, I'm sure the FO was important to all these guys, as it is a slam, but at least in the case of Rafter, Ivanisevic, and the Gorilla, it wasn't their prority, which probably has something to do with their lack of "good" results on clay.

Personally, I find the idea of Lleyton winning the FO to be a bit far-fetched. I think he's fit enough to do it, but at the moment, it isn't his priority, the AO is. Maybe when he wins that and realize he has a chance for a career Grand Slam, he'll work towards beefing up his game to be more effective on clay.

maratski
11-20-2002, 08:02 PM
A slam is a slam and it doesn't matter on what surface you win it. I think winning RG 3 times is good performance, better than 2 different GS's. Who says claycourt players can't play on other surfaces? Grass is their weakest surface, but they're also playing better and better on hardcourts. Ferrero can play well on the surface and might win a slam on it. THere is no GS on indoor, but have you forgotten that Corretja won the Masters in 1998 and Guga in 2000? Claycourters Can be good on other surfaces.
I actually like the claycourt season. It's my fave surface to watch. The long rallies and beautiful dropshots. It's awesome.

Scotso
11-20-2002, 08:04 PM
Ivanisevic won ONE slam and it was hardly due to talent... moreso the luck of being left handed and getting a WC... and also having a nice big serve that could rarely be returned.

Scotso
11-20-2002, 08:06 PM
And Becker, Edberg, and Stich were all amazing players but they just didn't have a game suited for clay. Stich maybe could have won but he underacheived a lot in his career.

No one said claycourters are inferior, but it is a fact that few of them do well off clay. They're built for it, they've got a one up on other players there and are majorly disadvantaged to them elsewhere.

Chloe le Bopper
11-20-2002, 08:16 PM
Just wanted to clarify -

I took the highest ranked players who either do accumulate a LOT of their points on one surface, or are accused of it.

Hewitt, and Ferrero.

This is the only reason those two were used for my arguement.

Chloe le Bopper
11-20-2002, 08:19 PM
I might also point out -

When Guga was number one, his clay points would likely be roughly the same proportion of his total as Hewitts hardcourt points (including indoor hardcourts - hardcourt is hardcourt).

Guga was critisized to no end.

Hewitt isn't.

I don't think either should be.

I'm merely bringing this up to show how biased people are in terms of hardcourts over clay.

You would think that clay was a new surface, the way people talk about it.

Chloe le Bopper
11-20-2002, 08:56 PM
Seeing as I have to study stats tonight later anyhow ;)

I'm going to go through their stats later and better explain what I'm trying to say, as *some* people don't understand it :)

Ma. Estefania
11-20-2002, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by TennisHack
Sounds to me like another reason to "look down" on good clay-court players.

I totally agree with you in this.
One more time people as Wertheim are trying to take away merits to a great player as Guga.:fiery:

Dissident
11-20-2002, 09:10 PM
Hmm, I think this subject can be faces on two different angles.

1. A slam is a slam, as someone else said. If you are talented at one surface and win on it three times, you did better than someone who is talented for two of them and won two. Period.
Of course we should take out of the equation the age of the players. A younger player and an older player, if both have two slams, the younger has the edge.

2. Winning slams on different courts is a prove of versatility. If someone can win all of them, he is for sure a specila player (Agassi). If he can win on two DIFFERENT courts (not taking AusOpen and USOpen as different), he is a different player, who should be treated with greater respect on two surfaces (Hewitt´s case).

In the end of the day, I still think the first point is a lot more objective, whilst the second depends on interpretation.

As for Guga being a new ball, I read an interview of him once and he said he wasnt a "young ball", but a "medium ball". :p
lmao

Murkofan
11-20-2002, 09:11 PM
I agree, I don't think either should be criticized. If you're #1, that means you achieved more than anyone else over the course of the year, regardless of the surface your best results came from.

The only explanation I can offer for why Guga was criticized (which I don't recall, btw, though I admit I was less into tennis in 2000 and the early part of 2001) is because the only slam he won was the FO, despite the fact that he won it 3 times in a row. That gives the impression of being a one-surface wonder, particularly if you don't make it to the SFs or F of another slam. As you said, most of Guga's points come from clay, though he has won a few hardcourt tournaments. What may make Lleyton different in a lot of other peoples' eyes is the fact that he's won at least one tournament on EVERY surface, and gotten to the 4th round of every slam, and the QFs of every slam except the AO.

Murkofan
11-20-2002, 09:14 PM
And should clarify that I think both players are great and very accomplished. :D

Ma. Estefania
11-20-2002, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Marly
Moving on to the media being biased against clay courters: I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that (for a lot of us, anyways) the US media is our main source of information, and as clay isn't the best surface of most of the American players, it doesn't get a lot of attention. They simply have an obligation to report what is newsworthy and interesting to the majority of Americans. Which generally isn't the fact that two Spaniards are playing in the final of a clay tournament.

I also agree with you.
It's just that isn't good for them to kinda make to know other people that there are other players that have a better development on clay courts than their "american" guys.:rolleyes: :o

Ma. Estefania
11-20-2002, 09:26 PM
At the end.....no.
3 are more than 2.
Are just Grand Slams, and that's worthy enough to be happy and proud.

Chloe le Bopper
11-20-2002, 10:01 PM
I agree, I don't think either should be criticized. If you're #1, that means you achieved more than anyone else over the course of the year, regardless of the surface your best results came from.

I agree totally. I think Guga in 2000, and Hewitt the past two years- no arguement - they achieved that number one ranking, and no one can take that away from them. I don't argue for a second that they didn't deserve it (even though I was sad Marat just missed it in 2000 ;) ).


The only explanation I can offer for why Guga was criticized (which I don't recall, btw, though I admit I was less into tennis in 2000 and the early part of 2001) is because the only slam he won was the FO, despite the fact that he won it 3 times in a row. That gives the impression of being a one-surface wonder, particularly if you don't make it to the SFs or F of another slam. As you said, most of Guga's points come from clay, though he has won a few hardcourt tournaments.

Guga was, and has been critisized for cushioning his ranking. For starts anytime someone calls him a "clay courter" - esp during his reign - it is insulting to his achievements on hardcourt. I'm sorry this site hasn't been around longer, and I don't have any old comments copied, or I would provide them. But I do recall getting into heated debates back in the day about this stuff ;)


What may make Lleyton different in a lot of other peoples' eyes is the fact that he's won at least one tournament on EVERY surface, and gotten to the 4th round of every slam, and the QFs of every slam except the AO.


If I'm not mistaken, Hewitt's only clay title came in 1998, correct? Long before his current stint at number one. Thus, the fact he has won it, shouldn't factor into peoples minds when considering the two different cases.

Anyhow - I have a thread I'm about to post about this in a second. I do hope some of you read it :)

Lee
11-20-2002, 10:15 PM
If I remember correctly, Guga won FO which is clay, won TM in outdoor hardcourt in Cincinnati, won TMC in indoor hardcourt in Bisbon and he is still considered as a "clay-courter" and can only do good on clay. The only surface he did not win is grass which consider the number of grass tourny and how tightly they are after FO, it's very difficult to expect him to win.

While, Hewitt had only win one clay court event which is not even a significant one as TM, he is considered and all surface player.

This becomes very confusing to me.

Murkofan
11-20-2002, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Rebecca

If I'm not mistaken, Hewitt's only clay title came in 1998, correct? Long before his current stint at number one. Thus, the fact he has won it, shouldn't factor into peoples minds when considering the two different cases.



I personally don't think of Guga as just a claycourter. Obviously it's his best surface, but he's won some big 'uns on hardcourts, that's for sure.

Lleyton's claycourt title was Delray Beach in '99, his only title of that year. I believe it's a hardcourt tournament now, but at the time it was on clay. Granted, the fact that he won it then has little to do with his being #1 now, but it does, imo, show him to be an all-surface threat, as do his clay results from the past two seasons (particularly '01) and the DC. Of course everyone, Lleyton himself included, will tell you that clay is his weakest and least favorite surface, but he can win on it, the fact that the majority of his points don't come from it notwithstanding.

Just as a totally random FYI, I really think a lot of people don't realize he's won on every surface. Every time he plays a match on ESPN and they start talking about his results and the tournaments he's won, Patty Mac and Cliffy D seem to forget about Delray Beach. I always have to fight the urge to call in or something and set the record straight. :p

Chloe le Bopper
11-20-2002, 10:43 PM
1999, not 1998.

My bad.

I did know he had won one clay title, as I checked up on that last year at some point to correct someone on something ;)

Chloe le Bopper
11-20-2002, 10:47 PM
Regarding Hewitt on clay - I don't question he has ability to play well on it. During Guga's amazing streak of matches won on clay - over two years the only people to beat him on clay were named Lleyton, Juan Caros, and Magnus - if I'm not mistaken.

In Davis Cup none the less.

And he's been to the quarters at the French ( you think I could forget this? ;)), the semis of Hamburg etc etc.

Just stressing I do not by any means, think he can't play on clay.

Vera
11-21-2002, 12:50 AM
Sorry, I haven't read everyone's opinion's yet cos I'm too eager to throw in my 2 cents here.

Originally posted by y_s
OK, to put it simple - when was the last time that a claycourter won a Slam on another surface? Hardcourt specialists do win RG from time to time ( Agassi, Kafelnikov, I expect Safin to win it one day. Look at most of fastcourters of recent time - Sampras, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Rafter, Safin - every single one of them ( with exception of Goran, and we know that he is an exception in about everything ) is a big threat on at least one another surface. Claycourters - Moya, Costa, Kuerten, Muster, Bruguera - what do they have in common? Right. The only Slam they've ever won is RG. Other promiment claycourters of recent times - Corretja, Ferrero - what did they manage to achieve in other Slams? Clay is the surface that differs most from any other surface. It is like a different sport. Samrpas, Agassi and Rafter made semis or better on a;; 4 Slams. Safin and Kafelnikov - semis or better on all but one , and even in that one they reached quarters. What about claycourters? From what I know, the only player from the list above that reached semis of Slam other than RG is Moya, right?

I think you said it yourself here. 3 out of 4 slams are played on fastcourt. And you wonder why fastcourters can win more different slams than claycourters. I just think that claycourters are always in a disadvantage here. I'm not saying that is a discrimination against them, it's just life. But it's just so unfair to say that they ain't good enough if they can only win RG.

And the fact that most of the tournaments are played on the faster court (hard courts), that makes it even impressive that claycourt can compete in ranking with the fast courters, isn't it? I mean, you got last opportunity to play on your favorite surface and yet you can accumulate more points out of those fewer opportunities. And in fact, clay courters can't make a living just playing on clay, IMO. They have to do reasonably well in faster surface to keep up with the rest. But fast courters can skip all the clay tourneys (well, not all, but not playing much) and still be able to make the top. To me, I'm giving my applause to the claycourters for being more versatile than the hardcourters.

And if any of you watch Guga played Pat in Cincy last year, you won't doubt about Guga's ability to play on hardcourt. It's painful to watch as a Pat fan (I love Pat). He had a wonderful hard court season and was in almost every hard court tourney final before USO. But Guga totally destroyed Pat. If not bcos Guga has that injury after Cincy, I truly believe Guga will have a great run in last year's USO.

Ace Tracker
11-21-2002, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by Dr. Marly
Moving on to the media being biased against clay courters: I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that (for a lot of us, anyways) the US media is our main source of information, and as clay isn't the best surface of most of the American players, it doesn't get a lot of attention. They simply have an obligation to report what is newsworthy and interesting to the majority of Americans. Which generally isn't the fact that two Spaniards are playing in the final of a clay tournament

very good point, Dr. Marly, that is possibly the main reason why clay court tournaments are looked down on by the American tennis establishment...Had Sampras's Wimbledon titles come on clay instead, and grass would be the "weird" surface of choice... and to counterpoint y_s's point, grass allows for even more specialized players than clay...taking Pete Sampras out of the equation, and you'll be surprised at how many one slam wonders you'll find on grass (no pun intended :rolleyes:)...

I also find part of the Australian Media to be extremelly biased sometimes...I remember reading the Australian online's preview for the 2002 Oz Open, and when analysing Guga's chances down under they wrote something like "no chance at all, he is one of the main reasons why selective seedings should be imposed upon all Slams and he should not be seeded for this tournament"... Guga's Aussie performance has been subpar year to date to say the least, but I thought the media was taking a cheap shot at his career... Those are the same people who call an Albert Costa Roland Garros title as a fluke, but would call an eventual Hewitt's French Open title as "natural and expected, further proof of his geniality" .... not trying to belittle Hewitt's chances on clay, we know he can play well on every surface, but I doubt the media would call a title of his on clay as being "flukey", while Albert Costa's is constantly being called like one... That is just to show how biased the Media can be concerning the so called "claycourters"...

Also don't forget that the lack of good American performance in Paris is long and did not start with Sampras...Jim Courier was probably the last one who could have been consistently considered for the French Open title, but the MacEnroe brothers, who happen to be commentators for large TV networks nowadays, never did well in Paris and bring an unconscious dislike for their RG coverage that are listened by millions...

Guga could perform well in Wimbledon; I doubt if he will ever win the tournament, as his long backswing does not suit well for the fast susface, but he is talented enough to go deep in the draw...problem is that he cannot hide his dislikeness for the surface, and lack of preparation for the British Slam, due in part for the fact that he usually does well in Paris and has not enough time to play the warm-up events...

warfreakbix
11-21-2002, 09:55 AM
Only if you learned Math, the way Jon did :D :D :D

I guess I will not be asking Jon any math questions then .... :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

ys
11-21-2002, 02:54 PM
3 out of 4 slams are played on fastcourt.

Not really. Rebound Ace is not really fast. Grass is even slower when it comes to groundstrokes, not serve. It's not speed of court, that kills claycourters on grass. It's low bounce, which is very difficult to deal with with that silly Western grip. But the speed of game on grass is almost as slow as on clay - just think about that - when the ball bounces low, you can't hit it hard and put it in, you have to take some pace off, put more topspin. In fact, when it comes to baseline rallies on grass, they could be agonisingly slow.

And if any of you watch Guga played Pat in Cincy last year, you won't doubt about Guga's ability to play on hardcourt.

Guga on fastcourts is pretty much like ( and by results is actually worse than ) Sampras on clay. On good day he can beat anyone, but stringing 7 best-of-fives together is out of question. Remember, Sampras has clay Masters title too, won at least as many titles on clay as Guga won not on clay, and made it to RG semis, while Guga didn't make it to semis of any remaining three. Yet we are protesting when people say that Guga is a claycourter, and we are ridiculing Sampras's inability on clay.

Layla
11-21-2002, 03:07 PM
People who ridicule Sampras for his less than spectacular results on clay are by far in the minority compared to all the people who take the piss out of the "claycourters", so please don't cry injustice in this regard.

ys
11-21-2002, 03:08 PM
People who ridicule Sampras for his less than spectacular results on clay are by far in the minority compared to all the people who take the piss out of the "claycourters", so please don't cry injustice in this regard.

Oh, really?

Chloe le Bopper
11-21-2002, 07:54 PM
A lot of people who make fun of Pete on clay, actually aren't aware of what he HAS done on clay ;)

For the record, Guga has been to the quarters of both Wimbledon and the US Open, if I'm not mistaken.

Meaning that he, like Lleyton, has been to the quarters of every slam but Oz.

Chloe le Bopper
11-21-2002, 07:58 PM
we are protesting when people say that Guga is a claycourter, and we are ridiculing Sampras's inability on clay.

Personally, I protest Guga being called a claycourter, and I don't ridicule Sampras's so called "inability" on clay.

In recent years his clay performances have been less than outstanding, but at his peak he did decently on the surface.

It's just compared to his other achievements that it appears he "sucks" on clay.

Ma. Estefania
11-21-2002, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Ace Tracker
Those are the same people who call an Albert Costa Roland Garros title as a fluke, but would call an eventual Hewitt's French Open title as "natural and expected, further proof of his geniality" .... not trying to belittle Hewitt's chances on clay, we know he can play well on every surface, but I doubt the media would call a title of his on clay as being "flukey", while Albert Costa's is constantly being called like one... That is just to show how biased the Media can be concerning the so called "claycourters"...

I hate that kind of media.:fiery: :fiery: :fiery:

Ma. Estefania
11-21-2002, 08:40 PM
Ok y_s, we know that you dislike claycourters, or at least, that you won't support them in this thread......

Dissident
11-22-2002, 02:27 AM
Guga doesnt even have the "silly western grip". Moya has. And its not silly at all, since its one of the main reasons why he is where he is.
You cant take one of the classic abilities of play, and say its silly. The author is the silly in this case.

There are people hitting groundstrokes with a continental grip. If it works for them, why would I open my big mouth and criticize?

petosp
11-22-2002, 02:46 AM
Grass is not a fast court????
I mean its well understood that the speed of the ball does not increase by any mean, but as you say the low bounce makes the work there. Plus use a slice on a clay court, and then use the same slice for a grass court. Do you have the same result???? NO

The low bounce means that you have less time to prepare for a shot, so the ball reaches its second bounce using less time (faster) than the clay courts. So which one is faster????? ;)

Originally posted by y_s


Not really. Rebound Ace is not really fast. Grass is even slower when it comes to groundstrokes, not serve. It's not speed of court, that kills claycourters on grass. It's low bounce, which is very difficult to deal with with that silly Western grip. But the speed of game on grass is almost as slow as on clay - just think about that - when the ball bounces low, you can't hit it hard and put it in, you have to take some pace off, put more topspin. In fact, when it comes to baseline rallies on grass, they could be agonisingly slow.



Guga on fastcourts is pretty much like ( and by results is actually worse than ) Sampras on clay. On good day he can beat anyone, but stringing 7 best-of-fives together is out of question. Remember, Sampras has clay Masters title too, won at least as many titles on clay as Guga won not on clay, and made it to RG semis, while Guga didn't make it to semis of any remaining three. Yet we are protesting when people say that Guga is a claycourter, and we are ridiculing Sampras's inability on clay.