The 3 peak all-surface players of today... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The 3 peak all-surface players of today...

Sam L (WTAW)
10-10-2005, 12:03 PM
1. Roger Federer
2. Marat Safin
3. Andy Roddick

These are the players that when they're AT THEIR BEST, are untouchable by the rest of the tour. They have all proven on their worst surface - clay.

And have won hardcourt slams. And are forces on grass.

Of course, Roger is the peak player of out the three and then Marat and then Andy. They have dominated recently and will continue to do so in the future.

In fact, these three have won 8 out of the last 10 grand slams. The other two won by claycourt clones. It's only a matter of time before these three catch up and dominate the clay too. :)

Thoughts?

David Kenzie
10-10-2005, 12:09 PM
1. Roger Federer
2. Marat Safin
3. Andy Roddick

These are the players that when they're AT THEIR BEST, are untouchable by the rest of the tour. They have all proven on their worst surface - clay.

And have won hardcourt slams. And are forces on grass.

How can Clay be Safin's worst surface when he has had better results at RG than at Wimbledon ?


In fact, these three have won 8 out of the last 10 grand slams. The other two won by claycourt clones. It's only a matter of time before these three catch up and dominate the clay too. :)

In fact, Roger has won 6 of the last 10 slams the other 4 having been taken by 4 different players.

Scotso
10-10-2005, 12:30 PM
Nadal is a claycourt clone? A claycourt clone of whom?

And since when is Andy Roddick untouchable at his best? On his serve, maybe... but come on.

fedpras
10-10-2005, 12:37 PM
Come on (no pun intended), Hewitt is more "untouchable" on clay than Roddick is. He should be higher on that list than Roddick.

Scotso
10-10-2005, 12:45 PM
Come on (no pun intended), Hewitt is more "untouchable" on clay than Roddick is. He should be higher on that list than Roddick.

Yes, and he's actually won a slam on a surface other than hard. :)

But Sam wouldn't note that, because he hates Hewitt.

DhammaTiger
10-10-2005, 12:46 PM
Andy Roddick untouchable on clay? Look at his results on clay this year, and then pontificate. He only wins in Houston because all the majour clay playetrs are playing in europe. You make me laugh with your overestimation of Roddick's ability on Clay.

Purple Rainbow
10-10-2005, 12:49 PM
Andy Roddick is not going to dominate clay, no matter how much you have the hots for him. His claycourt titles, numerous as they are, were at very insignificant tournaments. The only claycourt specialist Roddick has beaten in Houston is Guillermo Coria in 2002. Coria was ranked #198 at the time.

Experimentee
10-10-2005, 01:33 PM
Roddick isnt in the top 50 on clay.
Safin isnt in the top 20 on grass.
Fed is the only real all surface player out of those three.

Action Jackson
10-10-2005, 01:37 PM
Send in the clowns, where are the clowns, sorry I should have realised who the thread starter was, apart from Federer, the rest could be described as T-r-o-l-l.

alfonsojose
10-10-2005, 01:42 PM
:lol:

alfonsojose
10-10-2005, 01:45 PM
Send in the clowns, where are the clowns, sorry I should have realised who the thread starter was, apart from Federer, the rest could be described as T-r-o-l-l.
Is that Per Gessle :drool: on your avy?

Action Jackson
10-10-2005, 01:48 PM
Is that Per Gessle :drool: on your avy?

No, seņor it is not Per Gessle.

NYCtennisfan
10-10-2005, 01:50 PM
Results wise, Federer and Roddick DO fit the bill although I'm sure that Roddick woould be the first to tell everyone that 3-4 tournies on clay is more than enough. The same could be said of Safin. Even though Roddick's claycourt victoires have contained not the greatest of claycourt fields, he has still won a nice chunk of tournies on clay and that can't be taken away from him. He probably played one of his best matches of the year against Grosjean on clay in Houston.

alfonsojose
10-10-2005, 01:55 PM
No, seņor it is not Per Gessle.
:awww: Is that u then :D ?

gooner88
10-10-2005, 02:07 PM
Federer
Nalbo
Gasquet (up and coming)

Safin with his head screwed on or a younger Agassi would replace either Nalbo or Gasquet

Galaxystorm
10-10-2005, 02:46 PM
1. Roger Federer
2. Marat Safin
3. Andy Roddick
Thoughts?

I'm still wondering if you are an Andy's fanatic , because i don't understand what he's doing in this third position :confused:

The third position should be for Nalbandian and about Roddick i don't seem him in the top 5.

By the way Safin's worst surface is grass, not clay , in fact he's a good claycourter

Action Jackson
10-10-2005, 02:48 PM
:awww: Is that u then :D ?

Yes, it is.

prima donna
10-10-2005, 02:54 PM
Roddick? :haha:

Domino
10-10-2005, 04:38 PM
Federer
Nalbo
Gasquet (up and coming)

Safin with his head screwed on or a younger Agassi would replace either Nalbo or Gasquet

Yours is a more realistic look, though Gasquet needs a year or two. Nalbandian is the true other all-surface player besides Federer. On clay (RG SF, Rome F and two titles) Grass (Wimb F), Hard (US SF, Montreal F, AO QF). There really aren't three all surface players at the moment, IMO, Fed and Nalb are the only ones, though Federer at a much higher level.

lilfairyprincess
10-10-2005, 04:53 PM
Come on (no pun intended), Hewitt is more "untouchable" on clay than Roddick is. He should be higher on that list than Roddick.

hewitt should definately be placed above roddick on this list!
the only reason why some of his results lately (for eg wimbledon) haven't been as gud as roddick's is because he always meets fed b4 roddick!

RogiFan88
10-10-2005, 06:17 PM
don't understand the thread title... 3 peak?? since when is clay Safin's worst surface??

Chloe le Bopper
10-10-2005, 07:48 PM
SamL continues to demonstrate his great knowledge of the ATP.

Paul Banks
10-10-2005, 08:22 PM
1. Roger Federer
2. Marat Safin
3. Andy Roddick

These are the players that when they're AT THEIR BEST, are untouchable by the rest of the tour. They have all proven on their worst surface - clay.

And have won hardcourt slams. And are forces on grass.

Of course, Roger is the peak player of out the three and then Marat and then Andy. They have dominated recently and will continue to do so in the future.

In fact, these three have won 8 out of the last 10 grand slams. The other two won by claycourt clones. It's only a matter of time before these three catch up and dominate the clay too. :)

Thoughts?

:speakles:

bavaria100
10-10-2005, 08:43 PM
As far as I remember, Andyīs only untouchable on american clay. He has an american clay record of 28-2 or something like that. Itīs the total opposite in Europe, where he has a record of, I think, 25-20. So you canīt put him in the top 3 of the all surface players. I think a player like David Nalbandian is more even on all surfaces. Andy has totally regressed on european clay in the last 2 - 3 years.

Jimnik
10-10-2005, 08:57 PM
1. Roger Federer
2. Marat Safin
3. Andy Roddick

These are the players that when they're AT THEIR BEST, are untouchable by the rest of the tour. They have all proven on their worst surface - clay.

And have won hardcourt slams. And are forces on grass.

Of course, Roger is the peak player of out the three and then Marat and then Andy. They have dominated recently and will continue to do so in the future.

In fact, these three have won 8 out of the last 10 grand slams. The other two won by claycourt clones. It's only a matter of time before these three catch up and dominate the clay too. :)

Thoughts?
1. FedEx - I agree. At his best he should beat anyone on any surface and it is only a matter of time before he wins RG.

2. Safin - also agree, on ALL surfaces. I'm not sure if he'll ever win 7 clay matches in a row to win RG but, on his day, he could beat anyone on clay. If he had the belief, he could beat almost anyone on grass too. His biggest problem is that he seems to not want to do well on grass.

3. Roddick - well on grass I agree. He's shown that he can beat everyone except Fed. In fact, in 2004, he was almost at an equal level. On hard courts, even at his best, I think Hewitt might have a slight edge over him but it is very close. On clay, while I agree that it's only a matter of time before he gets a good run at RG, he'll never be in a position to challenge the big guns. Even at his best, I don't think he can beat Coria or Nadal - though he put up a good fight in the Davis Cup final.

shaoyu
10-10-2005, 11:04 PM
I thought about this and came up a way to measure this, by averaging the 3 surface ratings of setratings.com, and arrived at this ranking list:

Federer, R. (SUI ) 2467
Roddick, A. (USA ) 2132
Safin, M. (RUS ) 2022
Coria, G. (ARG ) 2018
Nalbandian, D. (ARG ) 2002
Ferrero, J. (ESP ) 1991
Canas, G. (ARG ) 1954
Gonzalez, F. (CHI ) 1943
Kiefer, N. (GER ) 1908
Malisse, X. (BEL ) 1891
Ancic, M. (CRO ) 1886
Henman, T. (GBR ) 1883
Andreev, I. (RUS ) 1881
Haas, T. (GER ) 1843
Novak, J. (CZE ) 1820
Youzhny, M. (RUS ) 1819

In order to qualify for this list, the player has to be current top 50 of all three surfaces. This limitation is due to the fact that I can only see top 50 of each surface from setratings.com website.

Surprisingly (or not), the top 3 are indeed those Sam mentioned, but with Roddick coming in at second.

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-10-2005, 11:17 PM
Roddick catching up to and beating Nadal on clay...:haha:

Nadal is a clone of who? :confused:

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-10-2005, 11:17 PM
Anybody catching up to Nadal and beating him at RG...:haha:

AgassiDomination
10-10-2005, 11:23 PM
My list would be:

Fed
Agassi
Hewitt... though i'm not sure on how good he is on clay...

Federerhingis
10-11-2005, 12:43 AM
My list would be:

Fed
Agassi
Hewitt... though i'm not sure on how good he is on clay...

Yeah I'd include Safin and Nalbandian too. Hewitt on good form is top 35 on clay, he's still scrappy and gritty never giving up a match until hes beaten off the court.

Merton
10-11-2005, 12:53 AM
Federer
Nalbandian
Gasquet (potentially)

Marat belongs to that list when he is on. Andy could do very well on clay but imho he did not seem to prioritize his clay results. It seems from his schedule in 2004, 2005 that he just went for the best he would get without any special preparation for clay.

PD: SamL was complaining in his other thread that RG lacked credibility because its recent winners did not do well outside RG. There is a contradiction between that thread and his first post here. If the players he sites win at RG where is the problem? If they are not then:

(a) recent winners are not "claycourt clones"
(b) SamL does not know what he is talking about or
(c) SamL made a new and significant contribution to elementary Aristotelian logic.

ys
10-11-2005, 02:02 AM
I liked it the way Sampras put it recently.. There is a Roger Federer, and also there is one player who at his rare best can really challenge Federer - that's Safin... These two.. All others are in a different league.. I agree.. Talent-wise Federer and Safin are staning alone and far away from the rest..

Federerhingis
10-11-2005, 02:07 AM
I liked it the way Sampras put it recently.. There is a Roger Federer, and also there is one player who at his rare best can really challenge Federer - that's Safin... These two.. All others are in a different league.. I agree.. Talent-wise Federer and Safin are staning alone and far away from the rest..

I always tend to agree with my all time favorite, just because I never watched tennis during the Borgian era, I wasnt even in my parents plans of becoming part of their lives until sometime in 1982 they decided to give me a try.

However, talent wise these two are far ahead of their peers no doubt.

Billabong
10-11-2005, 02:33 AM
:lol:

Billy Moonshine
10-11-2005, 03:31 AM
1. fed
2. marat
3. nalby

NYCtennisfan
10-11-2005, 05:40 AM
I thought about this and came up a way to measure this, by averaging the 3 surface ratings of setratings.com, and arrived at this ranking list:

Federer, R. (SUI ) 2467
Roddick, A. (USA ) 2132
Safin, M. (RUS ) 2022
Coria, G. (ARG ) 2018
Nalbandian, D. (ARG ) 2002
Ferrero, J. (ESP ) 1991
Canas, G. (ARG ) 1954
Gonzalez, F. (CHI ) 1943
Kiefer, N. (GER ) 1908
Malisse, X. (BEL ) 1891
Ancic, M. (CRO ) 1886
Henman, T. (GBR ) 1883
Andreev, I. (RUS ) 1881
Haas, T. (GER ) 1843
Novak, J. (CZE ) 1820
Youzhny, M. (RUS ) 1819

In order to qualify for this list, the player has to be current top 50 of all three surfaces. This limitation is due to the fact that I can only see top 50 of each surface from setratings.com website.

Surprisingly (or not), the top 3 are indeed those Sam mentioned, but with Roddick coming in at second.

Thanks for that. Results wise, the original poster is correct about Roddick and Federer as laready stated.

yomike
10-11-2005, 01:27 PM
That Roddick on clay part was very insightful really:rolleyes:

Sam L (WTAW)
10-11-2005, 01:45 PM
I thought about this and came up a way to measure this, by averaging the 3 surface ratings of setratings.com, and arrived at this ranking list:

Federer, R. (SUI ) 2467
Roddick, A. (USA ) 2132
Safin, M. (RUS ) 2022
Coria, G. (ARG ) 2018
Nalbandian, D. (ARG ) 2002
Ferrero, J. (ESP ) 1991
Canas, G. (ARG ) 1954
Gonzalez, F. (CHI ) 1943
Kiefer, N. (GER ) 1908
Malisse, X. (BEL ) 1891
Ancic, M. (CRO ) 1886
Henman, T. (GBR ) 1883
Andreev, I. (RUS ) 1881
Haas, T. (GER ) 1843
Novak, J. (CZE ) 1820
Youzhny, M. (RUS ) 1819

In order to qualify for this list, the player has to be current top 50 of all three surfaces. This limitation is due to the fact that I can only see top 50 of each surface from setratings.com website.

Surprisingly (or not), the top 3 are indeed those Sam mentioned, but with Roddick coming in at second.
Thanks. :)

I didn't need stats to observe the facts and the truth. But looks like I backed up by the matchs too. :)

Guys, it may not please you to hear this but it's the truth. These are the peak three players and when they're at their best, no one on the tour can touch them.

These three are the best of their generation.

Galaxystorm
10-11-2005, 01:54 PM
I thought about this and came up a way to measure this, by averaging the 3 surface ratings of setratings.com, and arrived at this ranking list:

Federer, R. (SUI ) 2467
Roddick, A. (USA ) 2132
Safin, M. (RUS ) 2022
Coria, G. (ARG ) 2018
Nalbandian, D. (ARG ) 2002
Ferrero, J. (ESP ) 1991
Canas, G. (ARG ) 1954
Gonzalez, F. (CHI ) 1943
Kiefer, N. (GER ) 1908
Malisse, X. (BEL ) 1891
Ancic, M. (CRO ) 1886
Henman, T. (GBR ) 1883
Andreev, I. (RUS ) 1881
Haas, T. (GER ) 1843
Novak, J. (CZE ) 1820
Youzhny, M. (RUS ) 1819

In order to qualify for this list, the player has to be current top 50 of all three surfaces. This limitation is due to the fact that I can only see top 50 of each surface from setratings.com website.

Surprisingly (or not), the top 3 are indeed those Sam mentioned, but with Roddick coming in at second.

This is an artificial stat without intrinsic value :o

Galaxystorm
10-11-2005, 01:58 PM
I didn't need stats to observe the facts and the truth. But looks like I backed up by the matchs too. :)

The truth is out there and not inside your brain..

Sam L (WTAW)
10-11-2005, 02:03 PM
The truth is out there and not inside your brain..
I told you you wouldn't like it.

Let's see which players have reached the most slam finals in the last 10 slams? Thank you.

jtipson
10-11-2005, 02:07 PM
I thought about this and came up a way to measure this, by averaging the 3 surface ratings of setratings.com, and arrived at this ranking list:...

In order to qualify for this list, the player has to be current top 50 of all three surfaces. This limitation is due to the fact that I can only see top 50 of each surface from setratings.com website.

Surprisingly (or not), the top 3 are indeed those Sam mentioned, but with Roddick coming in at second.

Hmm, this is interesting analysis but I'm not sure this is really an accurate assessment of whether players are all-round achievers.

First, if you take the mean value of the ratings across the surfaces, then by definition weaknesses and strengths are averaged out. So someone who is significantly poorer on clay but excellent on hard on grass, for instance, will still score very highly. But this isn't what we want here - we want to find players that have more or less equally good results on *all* surfaces.

Second, the measurements are current ratings. They don't really take into account that players may have had better results on any particular surface in the past (for instance, Nalbandian at Wimbledon, Safin at Roland Garros).

Third, these ratings are based on win/loss and quality of opponent, which can be helpful, but also it's important to note that seemingly insignificant losses can have a radical effect on the rating, and also that choosing to skip tournaments leaves one's rating unchanged.

Dirk
10-11-2005, 02:10 PM
Does indoors get factored in?

jtipson
10-11-2005, 02:13 PM
Does indoors get factored in?

I don't think Daniel has done an indoors rating yet. I guess he might do in time for the TMC.

Galaxystorm
10-11-2005, 02:16 PM
I told you you wouldn't like it.

Let's see which players have reached the most slam finals in the last 10 slams? Thank you.

To say that Roddick is the third best all-surface player is a tennistic outrage and one of the funniest jokes post in MTF.

Please check the previous messages and you will realize that you have made a fool of yourself with this thread.

ys
10-11-2005, 06:35 PM
To say that Roddick is the third best all-surface player is a tennistic outrage and one of the funniest jokes post in MTF.

Name me another currently active player, who is a GS champion , who is not named Federer or Agassi, and who won titles on all surfaces.

Castafiore
10-11-2005, 07:02 PM
I thought about this and came up a way to measure this, by averaging the 3 surface ratings of setratings.com, and arrived at this ranking list:

Federer, R. (SUI ) 2467
Roddick, A. (USA ) 2132
Safin, M. (RUS ) 2022
Coria, G. (ARG ) 2018
Nalbandian, D. (ARG ) 2002
Ferrero, J. (ESP ) 1991
Canas, G. (ARG ) 1954
Gonzalez, F. (CHI ) 1943
Kiefer, N. (GER ) 1908
Malisse, X. (BEL ) 1891
Ancic, M. (CRO ) 1886
Henman, T. (GBR ) 1883
Andreev, I. (RUS ) 1881
Haas, T. (GER ) 1843
Novak, J. (CZE ) 1820
Youzhny, M. (RUS ) 1819

In order to qualify for this list, the player has to be current top 50 of all three surfaces. This limitation is due to the fact that I can only see top 50 of each surface from setratings.com website.:scratch:
okay, I don't get it...
From what period is this list and why is Hewitt not on it for example?

Galaxystorm
10-11-2005, 07:13 PM
Name me another currently active player, who is a GS champion , who is not named Federer or Agassi, and who won titles on all surfaces.

Unluckily there are just few tournaments on grass and this fact made that usually only the grass courters can win those tournaments , but imagine that the clay season was as short as the current grass season and on the other hand the grass season was as long as the current clay season.. If this fact happened Roddick surely wouldn't win no tournament on clay and on the other hand there would be non-grass courters with titles on grass...

The key is the number of tournaments which are played in every surface ...

By the way it's true that Roddick have won 5 titles on clay BUT 4 of them have been won in north american tournaments :o and we all know how big level have these tournaments when the main part of claycourters don't play north american clay tournaments..( for example , Beto Martin and David Sanchez could win some more titles if they were intelligent and move to Houston instead of playing in Barcelona )

If i'm not wrong Roddick has a record of 28 victories in 30 matches in north american clay tourmaments :eek: :eek: ( Oh my God, he's better than Nadal wowwwwwww ) , but his record in european clay tournaments :o :o

Then , except for his title in St. Poelten ( as far as i know this tournament isn't Roland Garros or MonteCarlo , maybe i'm wrong :cool: ) i don't know what big things he has done in a decent clay tournament .. How many masters series on clay he has won ??..

And imagine that there was a grass tournament in Spain when mainly the claycourters played, surely Nadal would win some titles on grass ...

RODDICK'S RECORD ON CLAY IS A SCAM ( Houston :o )

ys
10-11-2005, 07:22 PM
And imagine that there was a grass tournament in Spain when mainly the claycourters played, surely Nadal would win some titles on grass ...

Wayne Arthurs and Mario Ancic would go there and thrash everyone... Wait, even if they won't, Nadal beating Lopez on grass? :rolls:

Nothing prevents good claycourters from playing in Houston. A title is a title. When some one surface wonder like Nadal or Puerta or Gaudio wins at least Newport, then we talk..

R.Federer
10-11-2005, 07:34 PM
agassi and nalbandian should be on this list before andi i think

Castafiore
10-11-2005, 07:34 PM
Nothing prevents good claycourters from playing in Houston. A title is a title. When some one surface wonder like Nadal or Puerta or Gaudio wins at least Newport, then we talk..
Well, this is another thing I don't quite understand in this thread...

So, when Roddick wins clay court tournaments, away from the hot clay court season (Monte Carlo, Rome,...)...it qualifies as having given proof of his worth on that surface and it's good enough to qualify as a top 3 all surface player ahead of players like Hewitt (who has two slams on two different surfaces) or Agassi (who has great titles on all surfaces) but when Nadal for example wins a Masters title on hard court (final against Agassi of all people) and another title on hard court, he's still a one surface wonder?

Surely, there's a double standard somewhere in there... :confused:

robinhood
10-11-2005, 07:54 PM
Title or no title, Roddick sucks on clay for a top 5 player.

robinhood
10-11-2005, 07:55 PM
Well, this is another thing I don't quite understand in this thread...

So, when Roddick wins clay court tournaments, away from the hot clay court season (Monte Carlo, Rome,...)...it qualifies as having given proof of his worth on that surface and it's good enough to qualify as a top 3 all surface player ahead of players like Hewitt (who has two slams on two different surfaces) or Agassi (who has great titles on all surfaces) but when Nadal for example wins a Masters title on hard court (final against Agassi of all people) and another title on hard court, he's still a one surface wonder?

Surely, there's a double standard somewhere in there... :confused:

Completely agreed.

lorenz
10-11-2005, 07:58 PM
Roddick has nothing to do in that list !!
:haha:

Galaxystorm
10-11-2005, 08:01 PM
Wayne Arthurs and Mario Ancic would go there and thrash everyone... Wait, even if they won't, Nadal beating Lopez on grass? :rolls:..

I wonder how many times you have seen Lopez playing :o . He has a good game to make good things on grass , but he's a loser and i wonder how many titles or how many times has been a finalist on a grass tournament ..
In 2003 when Nadal was just a teenager with acne was able to reach the tie break of a third set against Lopez on indoor carpet , this in only an example about how superior could be Lopez over Nadal on very fast courts and if i had to bet money on a match played by both players on grass i would bet on Nadal withou doubt

Did you know that Nadal won Ancic on grass ?? :o

Maybe this hypothetical grass tournament in Spain would be played in the same weeks than Queen's or Halle and maybe this spanish tournament would be plenty of claycourters..

But i see that your capacity of abstraction is very poor because i wanted you to think in a similar tournament to Houston but played on grass and in Spain, that is a tournament without specialists on grass played in Spain as Houston is a tournament on clay played mainly without claycourters..

By the way this hypothetical tournament in Spain was just an anecdote or an example of my message and i don't know why you have answered this anecdotic part wasting your time instead of talking about Roddick on clay :o

Nothing prevents good claycourters from playing in Houston. A title is a title. When some one surface wonder like Nadal or Puerta or Gaudio wins at least Newport, then we talk..

I see that you haven't been able to refute my theory and to show that Roddick's titles on clay have merit .

If all your arguments are " Nothing prevents good claycourters from playing in Houston " , sorry but i have to tell you that even my ten old cousin could made that reasoning .

I expected that you refuted me with numbers or stats showing that Roddick out of North America is able to be considered an all-surface player doing great things on clay, but i'm still waiting your arguments about why Roddick in Europe isn't the same than on north american clay, maybe it's a matter of weather :lol:

Galaxystorm
10-11-2005, 08:27 PM
When some one surface wonder like Nadal or Puerta or Gaudio wins at least Newport, then we talk..

I forgot to tell you some things in my last message

Well , so far Nadal isn't an all-surface player at all , but he isn't just a one-surface player as a lot of persons say ( i think some of these persons should ckeck Miami and Montreal results ).

And about Roddick , he is more an all-surface player than Nadal , but Roddick isn't an all-surface player at all, because on european clay he hasn't shown great things and how many titles has won on carpet ???= 0 titles ..

And about you said that when Nadal ,Puerta , Gaudio wins Newport etc etc .. I've already said to you in a previous message and i'm gonna repeat you ...: " Unluckily there are just few tournaments on grass and this fact made that usually only the grass courters can win those tournaments , but imagine that the clay season was as short as the current grass season and on the other hand the grass season was as long as the current clay season.. If this fact happened Roddick surely wouldn't win no tournament on clay and on the other hand there would be non-grass courters with titles on grass...

The key is the number of tournaments which are played in every surface ... "

It's so easy , if the ATP schedule was different with as many grass tournaments as clay tournament exist nowadays , you will see non-grass courters winning on grass in weak tournaments with a draw plenty of non-specialists

ys
10-11-2005, 08:29 PM
Well, this is another thing I don't quite understand in this thread...

So, when Roddick wins clay court tournaments, away from the hot clay court season (Monte Carlo, Rome,...)...it qualifies as having given proof of his worth on that surface and it's good enough to qualify as a top 3 all surface player ahead of players like Hewitt (who has two slams on two different surfaces) or Agassi (who has great titles on all surfaces) but when Nadal for example wins a Masters title on hard court (final against Agassi of all people) and another title on hard court, he's still a one surface wonder?

Surely, there's a double standard somewhere in there... :confused:


Nadal is one surface wonder not based on his heroics on hardcourts, just like Roddick is not one surface wonder not because he won events on clay.

No double standard.

Roddick made finals at two Slams, made semis at the third one. That's enough evidence that he is not one surface wonder. He proved to be capable of doing well in Slams on many surfaces. Just like Moya and Ferrero.. if we are talking Spaniards..

Nadal at this point didn't. Kuerten never did. Gaudio never did. Puerta never did. They are one surface wonders, if we are talking about what really matters in tennis. Slams.

ys
10-11-2005, 08:34 PM
Well , so far Nadal isn't an all-surface player at all , but he isn't just a one-surface player as a lot of persons say ( i think some of these persons should ckeck Miami and Montreal results ).

Who cares about miami or montreal.. The names that matter in tennis are - Melbourne, Paris, London, New York. All Nadal's Miami or Montreal, just like Kuerten's Cininnatis or Lisboas say nothing about their ability to play on other surfaces. If you are really capable on a surface, you should be able to beat the best on that surface when they are at their best, at their motivational highest, in a true men best-of-five battle. In Slams.. Not playing a snake in the grass in a tournament that adds very little or nothing to one's tennis legacy.

Castafiore
10-11-2005, 08:39 PM
Nadal is one surface wonder not based on his heroics on hardcourts, just like Roddick is not one surface wonder not because he won events on clay.

No double standard.
Yeah, right...makes total sense :rolleyes:

Keep it up, ys...I'm having fun with that 'logic' of yours. :yeah:

Galaxystorm
10-11-2005, 08:46 PM
Nadal is one surface wonder not based on his heroics on hardcourts, just like Roddick is not one surface wonder not because he won events on clay.

No double standard.

Roddick made finals at two Slams, made semis at the third one. That's enough evidence that he is not one surface wonder. He proved to be capable of doing well in Slams on many surfaces. Just like Moya and Ferrero.. if we are talking Spaniards..

Nadal at this point didn't. Kuerten never did. Gaudio never did. Puerta never did. They are one surface wonders, if we are talking about what really matters in tennis. Slams.

Definitely your theory is plenty of subjectivity and you use not double standard you use 3, 4, five standars :eek: :eek: :eek: .

You consider Roddick as an all-surface player ( that means good in hard, carpet, grass and clay ) and according to your theory his 5 titles in mediocre clay tournaments are enough to consider him as good on clay . BUT on the other hand a player like Nadal who is able to win a masters series ( NOT mediocre tournaments ) on hard , and reach a final in another masters series on hard he can't be considered as good on hard and he's just a one-surface player ( claycourter ) and not a two-surface player :worship: :worship: :worship: If someone invented the word " subjectivity " surely was thinking in you :lol:

Nadal isn't a one surface player, is a two-surface player ( clay and hard , much better on clay )

And to call Roddick as an all-surface player without being able to do great things on european clay and without being able to win a tournament on carpet is just an OUTRAGE.

Well, it's a waste of time to discuss with you and your subjectivity . Bye :wavey:

gillian
10-11-2005, 08:52 PM
I have only one pick: Roger Federer.

Maybe, sometimes, kinda, Lleyton Hewitt. At the very least he tries on all surfaces. I'd love for Marat to realize his potential on all surfaces, but it just hasn't happened yet. As for Roddick, I like the guy, but he's basically a non-entity during the clay court season.

revolution
10-11-2005, 09:18 PM
Who on earth good repped this prat?

Sam L (WTAW)
10-11-2005, 09:38 PM
Nadal is one surface wonder not based on his heroics on hardcourts, just like Roddick is not one surface wonder not because he won events on clay.

No double standard.

Roddick made finals at two Slams, made semis at the third one. That's enough evidence that he is not one surface wonder. He proved to be capable of doing well in Slams on many surfaces. Just like Moya and Ferrero.. if we are talking Spaniards..

Nadal at this point didn't. Kuerten never did. Gaudio never did. Puerta never did. They are one surface wonders, if we are talking about what really matters in tennis. Slams.
Exactly, ys. And your question of aside from Federer, who has won tournaments on all surfaces? :lol: You got them all.

Yes, one of the players I want to expose of course is Nadal. Who everyone thinks is the second best in the world and "all surface". But he's not.

The real peak all-surface players following Federer are Safin and Roddick. The stats speak for themselves.

revolution
10-11-2005, 09:42 PM
Hewitt should be higher than Roddick.

Roddick isn't even top 50 on clay despite his titles.

Safin isn't top 20 on grass either.

Nadal has a hardcourt TMS.

Where's Roddick's clay TMS? (nothing against Roddick btw)

Clearly you lack a few things, perhaps you need to pick them up.

bavaria100
10-11-2005, 09:46 PM
:scratch:
okay, I don't get it...
From what period is this list and why is Hewitt not on it for example?


I think Hewitt isnīt on this list because he missed the whole clay season this year. This list includes only this years results.

Castafiore
10-11-2005, 09:55 PM
I think Hewitt isnīt on this list because he missed the whole clay season this year. This list includes only this years results.
So, Hewitt missed the clay season but reached the semi-final in Wimbledon and the USO + a final in the AO and he's not on the all-surface list but somebody like Malisse is? (I mean, I'm a fan of the X-Man but come on...let's get real here for a minute)
Why is Henman on the list and not Hewitt?
Does that list really make sense to people in here? :scratch:

keqtqiadv
10-11-2005, 10:00 PM
Marat and Federer.

bavaria100
10-11-2005, 10:09 PM
So, Hewitt missed the clay season but reached the semi-final in Wimbledon and the USO + a final in the AO and he's not on the all-surface list but somebody like Malisse is? (I mean, I'm a fan of the X-Man but come on...let's get real here for a minute)
Why is Henman on the list and not Hewitt?
Does that list really make sense to people in here? :scratch:


We all shouldnīt take this list seriously. They didnīt include Lleyton because he didnīt play on every surface this year. Malisse is in there because he played in 2 clay tourneys and 2 grass ones. Henman reached the quarters at Queens and participated in 4 clay tournaments this year.

Castafiore
10-11-2005, 10:11 PM
We all shouldnīt take this list seriously.
No kidding!

bavaria100
10-11-2005, 10:30 PM
By the way it's true that Roddick have won 5 titles on clay BUT 4 of them have been won in north american tournaments and we all know how big level have these tournaments when the main part of claycourters don't play north american clay tournaments..( for example , Beto Martin and David Sanchez could win some more titles if they were intelligent and move to Houston instead of playing in Barcelona )

If i'm not wrong Roddick has a record of 28 victories in 30 matches in north american clay tourmaments ( Oh my God, he's better than Nadal wowwwwwww ) , but his record in european clay tournaments

Then , except for his title in St. Poelten ( as far as i know this tournament isn't Roland Garros or MonteCarlo , maybe i'm wrong ) i don't know what big things he has done in a decent clay tournament .. How many masters series on clay he has won ??..

And imagine that there was a grass tournament in Spain when mainly the claycourters played, surely Nadal would win some titles on grass ...

RODDICK'S RECORD ON CLAY IS A SCAM ( Houston )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, Roddick really has a clay record of 28-2 in the USA. I think he once said, that the big difference to the european tourneys is the kind of tennisballs that they are using. The balls in the US clay tourneys are lighter and bounce higher, while the balls in the Masters events are heavy and they are making the game much slower. Roddickīs european clay record is 25-20, but remarkably is, that he has totally regressed in the last few years. In his second year as a pro (he played his first full european clay schedule), he reached the semis in Rome and the third round in Hamburg and in Monte Carlo. But it only got worse from year to year and IMO, the Roddick of 2005 isnīt in the top 3 of the all-surface players. A player like Nalbandian is a thread on every surface. Just wanted to add something to Roddickīs record on carpet. His record is 13-7 and I think his best result on that surface was the semifinal in Paris in 2003. I think one of the reasons why he never has won a tourney on carpet is, that he plays not enough tourneys on that surface. 7 tourneys in nearly 5 years. But still I think, that there are a few players, who are better on that surface than him, e.g. Ljubicic or Safin. Heīs the strongest player on grass after Roger, but he isnīt as dominant as last year on that surface. He struggled against opponents, who he would have beaten in straight sets last year. Iīm already excited to see, how he will do on grass in 2006.

ys
10-11-2005, 10:35 PM
Definitely your theory is plenty of subjectivity and you use not double standard you use 3, 4, five standars :eek: :eek: :eek: .

You consider Roddick as an all-surface player ( that means good in hard, carpet, grass and clay ) and according to your theory his 5 titles in mediocre clay tournaments are enough to consider him as good on clay . BUT on the other hand a player like Nadal who is able to win a masters series ( NOT mediocre tournaments ) on hard , and reach a final in another masters series on hard he can't be considered as good on hard and he's just a one-surface player ( claycourter ) and not a two-surface player :worship: :worship: :worship: If someone invented the word " subjectivity " surely was thinking in you :lol:

Three GS surfaces. Hardcourt, clay, grass.. Nadal's best surface is better than Roddick's best surface. Roddick's second best surface is much, much better than Nadal's second best surface ( multipe GS finals vs , what , nothing, R16? ) Roddick's worst surface is much, much better than Nadal's worst surface.. in every aspect.. Tell me, who is more balanced surface-wise, who is more of an all-surface player, who is one-surface wonder..

How can one even argue here? How biased or stupid can one get to even compare Roddick to Nadal in terms of surface balance..

ys
10-11-2005, 10:38 PM
A player like Nalbandian is a thread on every surface.

In Slams? He is a threat on no surface..

bavaria100
10-11-2005, 10:42 PM
In Slams? He is a threat on no surface..


What??? :eek: Nalbandian reached the finals and the quarters in Wimbledon. He reached the semis and the quarters of the US Open. He made it into the quarters of the Australien Open twice and he made it to the semis of the French Open. Sure, he hasnīt won a Grand Slam yet, but he has a great chance at every one of them and Iīm sure, that heīll win one in the future.

Galaxystorm
10-11-2005, 11:05 PM
Yes, Roddick really has a clay record of 28-2 in the USA. I think he once said, that the big difference to the european tourneys is the kind of tennisballs that they are using. The balls in the US clay tourneys are lighter and bounce higher, while the balls in the Masters events are heavy and they are making the game much slower.

It's true that Houston tournament is played with Wilson balls and (MonteCarlo , Rome and Hamburg ) are played witn Penn balls, but all AMS are played with Penn balls and not Wilson balls as for example in the US Open, then if Roddick feels uncomfortable playing with Penn balls why he's able to do great things in north american masters series ( IW, Miami , Cincy , the canadian masters series ).??

If Roddick uses this explanation to explain his loss of level on european clay in comparison with north american, i think this is a poor excuse and a bit ridiculous because a pro player is used to change balls almost week after week, some week you play with Penn, another week with Wilson, Dunlop, Babolat etc ,and Roddick after Miami if he wanted he would have enough time to train with Penn balls on clay .

I can understand that a player has problems to adjust to the new balls when he plays one week with Wilson and the next week has to play with another mark but after several days of practise the player gets to adjust , and besides more than the 50% of ATP tournaments are played with Penn balls , besides i don't think the Penn balls used for clay are very different from the balls used on hard, in fact the claycourters don't complain about Penn balls when they are playing in IW , Miami etc , they don't feel no problem with these balls .

Maybe Wilson balls are better for him on clay than Penn, but the balls can't explain the 100% of his loss of level , maybe the 10% or less ....The key is european draws are much more harder than Houston..

mangoes
10-11-2005, 11:25 PM
Roger is the only player that we can all agree on. The other top 4 all have their moments. But Roger is the most consistent on all surfaces.

Galaxystorm
10-11-2005, 11:53 PM
Three GS surfaces. Hardcourt, clay, grass.. Nadal's best surface is better than Roddick's best surface. Roddick's second best surface is much, much better than Nadal's second best surface ( multipe GS finals vs , what , nothing, R16? ) Roddick's worst surface is much, much better than Nadal's worst surface.. in every aspect.. Tell me, who is more balanced surface-wise, who is more of an all-surface player, who is one-surface wonder..

How can one even argue here? How biased or stupid can one get to even compare Roddick to Nadal in terms of surface balance..

I think you are the only stupėd and biased person here

1) Why stupid ??: You aren't able to read . Where have i compared Roddick to Nadal in terms of surface balance . I have only used Nadal as example of your subjectivity , in no case i have said that Nadal could be compared to Roddick in terms of being as good all-surface player as Andy .

As you have lack of memory i would copy and paste what i said in a previous message :

" Well , so far Nadal isn't an all-surface player at all , but he isn't just a one-surface player as a lot of persons say ( i think some of these persons should ckeck Miami and Montreal results ).

And about Roddick , he is more an all-surface player than Nadal , but Roddick isn't an all-surface player at all, because on european clay he hasn't shown great things and how many titles has won on carpet ???= 0 titles .. "

I'm only saying two things : Nadal is a two-surface player and Roddick isn't an all-surface player at all, but it's obvious that he's a better all-surface player than Nadal.

2) Why biased ??: Because a person who considers Roddick as an all-surface player can be only considered as a biased person with lack of objectivity because Roddick's level on clay isn't enough to call him as an all-surface player.
And you are also a biased person when you consider 5 titles on clay ( 4 of them in north america ) enough to call Roddick as a good player on clay , but on the other hand Nadal's results in masters series on hard aren't enough to call him as a good player on hard :lol:...You have one of the logic more illogical that i've ever seen. :worship:

By the way, in a previous message you said : " If you are really capable on a surface, you should be able to beat the best on that surface when they are at their best, at their motivational highest, in a true men best-of-five battle "
And i'm still waiting what best-of-five battle Roddick has won on clay against a top claycourter??? :o


This will be my last message in this thread discussing with you , i'm not gonna waste my time with a person who haven't answered me a lot of questions, a person who just quoted some parts of my messages as if the others parts didn't exist ( surely you have no answer for those parts ) ...and a person who thinks in Roddick as all-surface player without serious arguments... :wavey: :wavey:

PS: Castafiore on Ys : " I'm having fun with that 'logic' of yours " . I also agree :yeah:

Action Jackson
10-11-2005, 11:58 PM
ys, has been using his great theoretical knowledge once again, and as usual hasn't failed to deliver in quality analysis.

ys
10-12-2005, 02:00 AM
ys, has been using his great theoretical knowledge once again, and as usual hasn't failed to deliver in quality analysis.

Unlike all other "unbiased" folks from this thread, I am not a fan of any player under consideration.. I don't like Roddick any more than I like Nadal.. But , as always, I go with the truth, only truth..

Even
10-12-2005, 04:40 AM
There seems to be so many "surface specialists" that quality all-round tennis players are a rarity.

Federer is probably the only quality all-round player, but thats probably because he is so good, his worse surface is better than most players best surface. Nalbandian has proven he is no dropkick on any surface, Safin with his head screwed on also could win on any surface.

I would love to see Hewitt play more clay tournaments. Not sure if he can become a clay contender, but he has built up a little since he last played on clay, so he might be able to hit the ball a little more forceful than he used to.:shrug: