Will Nadal go down as a little one dimensional? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Will Nadal go down as a little one dimensional?

Garson007
06-11-2012, 01:23 PM
There is no questioning that his game is super effective, but on the off surface he seems to be a little less than capable. It's also by pure extrapolation possible to see that he's about as 5 times effective on red clay than on any other surface, which I don't think you'll find for many players of his achievements. This is not a dig at Nadal, since he's clearly good enough to win other slams, but just not nearly as good as on clay.

Ziros
06-11-2012, 01:26 PM
Sampras never won on clay,Borg only won on clay and grass. He just needs a few more slams to be the GOAT

Johnny Groove
06-11-2012, 01:26 PM
Tough to call someone one dimensional when the guy has made 9 slam finals off clay.

I'd say an all round player with a clay specialization who is capable on other surfaces as well.

tyruk14
06-11-2012, 01:26 PM
Nadal will never be the GOAT.

Quadruple Tree
06-11-2012, 01:27 PM
Tough to call someone one dimensional when the guy has made 9 slam finals off clay.

Not when every surface plays like slightly faster clay.

indianabones
06-11-2012, 01:27 PM
At the moment, yes he is. Clearly demonstrated by his lack of ability on other surfaces and dominance on clay.

Har-Tru
06-11-2012, 01:29 PM
In fairness, he's won all slams not played on clay, meaning he's won slams on clay, grass, slow hard and fast hard.

I do believe he is one-dimensional, but he won't go down as being one-dimensional, at least not more than Borg (let alone Sampras).

A_Skywalker
06-11-2012, 01:31 PM
At the moment, yes he is. Clearly demonstrated by his lack of ability on other surfaces and dominance on clay.

Wish I had that lack of ability on other surfaces :lol:
I would retire with more than 10 million dollars

Garson007
06-11-2012, 01:32 PM
Tough to call someone one dimensional when the guy has made 9 slam finals off clay.
This isn't about how good his achievements have been, but how much better his achievements on clay are as on other surfaces. It's more about comparing himself to himself, not the field.

Wing Man Frank
06-11-2012, 01:33 PM
Absolutely.

Easily the most boring tennis player that has ever lived.

Quadruple Tree
06-11-2012, 01:33 PM
In fairness, he's won all slams not played on clay, meaning he's won slams on clay, grass, slow hard and fast hard.

I do believe he is one-dimensional, but he won't go down as being one-dimensional, at least not more than Borg (let alone Sampras).

Borg played serve and volley to win Wimbledon and out grinded everyone on clay. He was very versatile unlike Nadal who plays the same way on every surface standing 10 feet behind the baseline trying to be a human practice wall.

Sri
06-11-2012, 01:35 PM
What was exposed was his lack of a Plan B.

He is great at the default RG conditions, but throw in heavier balls and he's not the same player.

He didn't know how to respond. Thankfully play was called off.

jaymon112
06-11-2012, 01:36 PM
I'm not sure about one-dimensional, but what i like about it it's totally unique to him.

Mountaindewslave
06-11-2012, 01:38 PM
how is he one dimensional when he is most famous for adapting his game to suit other conditions and is respected as the biggest tactic changer mid match to find answers to beat his opponents?

if anything Nadal is a perfect example of a player with a lot of variety and the ability to adjust his game to do well anywhere. just look at 2010 US OPEN versus 2007 US OPEN and you won't even recognize Nadal, it will seem like two different people. he's anything but one dimensional

shmeeko69
06-11-2012, 01:39 PM
His game is based on power and spin and clay gives him the perfect opportunity to play his ideal game. He gets caught out with other players on different surfaces and that is why 7/11 grand slam wins have come on this particular surface. Still an exceptional player though!!

paseo
06-11-2012, 01:39 PM
Nadal is a one trick pony. But the trick is so good that he doesn't need another one.

BroTree123
06-11-2012, 01:39 PM
Fuck off haters.

Smoke944
06-11-2012, 01:40 PM
In fairness, he's won all slams not played on clay, meaning he's won slams on clay, grass, slow hard and fast hard.

I do believe he is one-dimensional, but he won't go down as being one-dimensional, at least not more than Borg (let alone Sampras).

At this risk of sounding like SetSampras...
:scratch:
Sampras was amazing on grass, hard, indoor hard, and carpet.
Nadal is amazing on clay and...help me out here. Maybe very good on grass?
Don't see how Sampras is the one-dimensional one.

Roger the Dodger
06-11-2012, 01:41 PM
Sampras never won on clay,Borg only won on clay and grass. He just needs a few more slams to be the GOAT

Would be fun if he actually became the GOAT playing GOATworthy tennis instead of shitty moonball + good defending playstation tennis. Nadal can accumulate 20 slams but still, people with tennis-sense will continue to debate if this imposter was the GOAT.

ClayGOAT issue might be resolved for most today. But the GOAT debate, certainly not.

ServeVolley
06-11-2012, 01:43 PM
Obviously.

11 slams = 7 clay + 2 grass + 2 hardcourt
21 masters = 16 clay + 5 hardcourt
17 other = 13 clay + 1 grass + 6 hardcourt

72% of his titles have come on clay. :shrug:

Action Jackson
06-11-2012, 01:44 PM
Well it's a damn good, brutal and effective one dimension and not like he needs others in the current climate.

justine&coria
06-11-2012, 01:45 PM
At this risk of sounding like SetSampras...
:scratch:
Sampras was amazing on grass, hard, indoor hard, and carpet.
Don't see how Sampras is the one-dimensional one.
Thanks for the joke of the day !! :worship:

Johnny Groove
06-11-2012, 01:46 PM
Not when every surface plays like slightly faster clay.

Now this is an excuse. I don't buy all the surfaces play the same crap. If so, how come Federer has no chance vs. Djokovic or Nadal on slow AO or RG, but has good chances at Wimbledon and USO? Do you expect Ferrer to make Wimbledon SF? Could Karlovic make a QF at any slam other than Wimbledon?

This isn't about how good his achievements have been, but how much better his achievements on clay are as on other surfaces. It's more about comparing himself to himself, not the field.

Sure he is better on clay than he is on other surfaces, every player has preferred surfaces. Is Djokovic a one dimensional slow-medium hard court player? Is Federer a one dimensional fast court player?

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 01:46 PM
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4vl3voKcR1qj3ir1.gif

FlameOn
06-11-2012, 01:46 PM
His game is effective yet very very very dull :yawn:. I hate it.

Smoke944
06-11-2012, 01:48 PM
Thanks for the joke of the day !! :worship:

If you have a response to contradict the stats, I'm all ears.

Roger the Dodger
06-11-2012, 01:49 PM
His game is effective yet very very very dull :yawn:. I hate it.

This post sums up why he shouldn't be GOAT even with 20 slams.

Garson007
06-11-2012, 01:49 PM
Sure he is better on clay than he is on other surfaces, every player has preferred surfaces. Is Djokovic a one dimensional slow-medium hard court player? Is Federer a one dimensional fast court player?
Both have had more success averaged across the board.

rinnegan
06-11-2012, 01:50 PM
"A little" is being too kind.

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 01:52 PM
If you have a response to contradict the stats, I'm all ears.

4 finals in hard court slams, two wins. Yeah, it sound to me very one dimensional.

Roger the Dodger
06-11-2012, 01:53 PM
"A little" is being too kind.

I think that 'little' was added later and that's just pathetic from the OP. He's purely one dimensional.

@Sweet Cleopatra
06-11-2012, 01:56 PM
There is no questioning that his game is super effective, but on the off surface he seems to be a little less than capable. It's also by pure extrapolation possible to see that he's about as 5 times effective on red clay than on any other surface, which I don't think you'll find for many players of his achievements. This is not a dig at Nadal, since he's clearly good enough to win other slams, but just not nearly as good as on clay.


Rafa is sure better on clay more than other surfaces but he changed his game to win other slams. It's not Rafa's fault other players dont try to improve on clay.
Sharapova added sliding and topspins to her game to win Roland Garros.
It's so good to see 2 hard workers who are willing to change their game to win as champions. This Roland Garros awarded players who worked hard and had good clay season, please don't hate on them its so wrong, they worked hard to do that.

Jimnik
06-11-2012, 01:56 PM
1-dimensional is too kind? :lol:

Maybe he's 0.5-dimensional.

Roger the Dodger
06-11-2012, 01:56 PM
4 finals in hard court slams, two wins. Yeah, it sound to me very one dimensional.

Thats nothing.

If he wins 20 slams, its still one dimensional tennis. Zero variety. Zero GOAT tennis.

dencod16
06-11-2012, 02:13 PM
He is a little bit one-dimensional, but the thing is that he does his game so well, his movement and his top spin is superb, even if his other skill sets are just average, those average skills rarely go below-average which is better than having all the skill set but they are erratic and a 50/50. There are a lot of players that have a lot of skills but have no focus on having a weapon.

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 02:18 PM
Thats nothing.

If he wins 20 slams, its still one dimensional tennis. Zero variety. Zero GOAT tennis.

8 finals in GS out of clay, 4 GS, Olympics and he still can win more. Yeah

http://mybeautyfrompain.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/tantrum.gif

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-11-2012, 02:29 PM
worst tennis player i ever saw

nadull tards worst fanbase in tennis history

Action Jackson
06-11-2012, 02:32 PM
Not ski jumping, where you get style points.

luie
06-11-2012, 02:35 PM
He is a one trick pony . Borg won 23 titles indoors , nadull 1. I don't think Borg benefitted from on court coaching. Luck also plays a great part in the moonballers arsenal .

out_grinder
06-11-2012, 02:35 PM
He does one thing over and over again (hit high to the backhand)

It's a testament to the mug-ness of the ATP that not one single player can find a solution to this.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-11-2012, 03:36 PM
lets be honest

brings federer dow that he didnt own this one trick cheating douche bag

J99
06-11-2012, 07:12 PM
He might be a bit one dimensional, but that dimension is so good it doesn't really matter, it's like an extra dimension anyway.

Agassi was also very narrow in his game, yet it was incredibly effective too.

finishingmove
06-11-2012, 07:19 PM
No, I think he's done enough for his legacy not to go down as one-dimensional.

He's done as much as was needed to modify his game and be competitive on the other (albeit very homogenized nowadays) surfaces.

Allez
06-11-2012, 07:19 PM
oh god not this "one-dimensional" claptrap again :facepalm:

Fed=ATPTourkilla
06-11-2012, 07:20 PM
Now this is an excuse. I don't buy all the surfaces play the same crap. If so, how come Federer has no chance vs. Djokovic or Nadal on slow AO or RG, but has good chances at Wimbledon and USO? Do you expect Ferrer to make Wimbledon SF? Could Karlovic make a QF at any slam other than Wimbledon?

???

Federer has no chance vs Djokovic or Nadal on clay or slow AO? He beat Djokovic at RG last year. Lost this year but it wasn't because he can't play on the surface, it was because his form was awful. He hardly had 'no chance' vs Rafa at AO in 2009 and this year, although he lost both times.

Vs Nadal on clay you have a point, though.

GSMnadal
06-11-2012, 07:21 PM
He will go down as the fucking GOAT, that's what. :baby:

LleytonMonfils
06-11-2012, 07:21 PM
He's not 1 dimension. Roddick or Isner are 1 dimensional, but his entire game is a 1 dimensional game in regards to surface. It fits 1 surface perfectly. If the others hadn't been slowed down over the years Nadal wouldn't have any of those trophies. Nadal is not or will never be considered the GOAT. Rafatards need to get that through their head. Your boys body won't hold up long enough to even sniff that crown.

peribsen
06-11-2012, 07:53 PM
The sheer number of sour losers in this forum should give all of us food for thought. If this is a non-photoshopped snapshot of people calling themselves sportfans (you know, knowing how to lose gracefully and all that).... makes one want to cry.

Orka_n
06-11-2012, 08:00 PM
Nadal hasn't adapted shit, the Rafatards keep repeating that stuff like a mantra but it's actually not true. It's not like he pulled a Borg and started serve-volleying in Wimbledon out of nowhere. The homogenization of the surfaces helped Rafa so he was able to win with his clay tennis style on other surfaces as well. Only clear "adaptation" I've seen from him was in the 2010 USO, that power serve that mystically disappeared afterwards.

He will go down as a glorified clay specialist.

NID
06-11-2012, 08:04 PM
he is two dimensional. its not just spin, it's both power and spin. :)

his game is super efficient, but is not universally appreciated for its hmmm...aesthetics. no one hates watching fed play, quite a few people think that nadal's game, although effective, is an eyesore. hence most of the venomous comments re nadal, a lot of people seem unable to distinguish between him as a competitor (a great one for sure) and the visual shock they suffer when watching him play and waste time inbetween.

abraxas21
06-11-2012, 08:06 PM
it is

then again, who needs more than 1 dimention when in today's tennis only one is required?

abraxas21
06-11-2012, 08:09 PM
Nadal hasn't adapted shit, the Rafatards keep repeating that stuff like a mantra but it's actually not true. It's not like he pulled a Borg and started serve-volleying in Wimbledon out of nowhere. The homogenization of the surfaces helped Rafa so he was able to win with his clay tennis style on other surfaces as well. Only clear "adaptation" I've seen from him was in the 2010 USO, that power serve that mystically disappeared afterwards.

He will go down as a glorified clay specialist.

nadal very slightly flattens the tospin on grass and hardcourts. it's a small change that rafatards want to pass it as an example of supreme adaptation of the all-court game of rafa.

over the years, rafa also became a bit more aggressive (or should I say "less defensive"). then again, this change happened on all surfaces.

gaitare
06-11-2012, 08:13 PM
His volleying in 2003-2005 was desperate and hilarious, early Davydenko level, he's not a natural at the net, but his competent there now. He started off as pure moonballer, but with years his forehand became a huge offensive weapon. He succeeded on grass and fast hardcourts, even if neither is that fast anymore. I'm starting to think that his will and ambition would make him triumph in a 90s style Wimbledon, he would adapt even to that IF he had to.

I don't like him as a person and as a player, but he evolved during the years, he was willing to visit new tennis territories and I like that.

luie
06-11-2012, 08:14 PM
The RG final did show us one thing about Nadulls game , even on Red clay when his top spin is less potent he is a sitting duck.

peribsen
06-11-2012, 08:18 PM
Only a handful of guys have ever managed to win really big titles on all surfaces. That means that about 4/5ths of all slam winners through history only managed to win on grass. But people will just keep on insisting that Rafa is monodimensional, on the only grounds that he really excells on clay. Their definition of monodimensional seems to be that you shouldn't be clearly superior on a given surface than on the others. For them, a player taking 1 slam on each surface would prove himself multidimensional, while a player with 1-7-2-1 would be a case study of being monodimensional.

It's all clearly just BS and stupid, but that's the analytical prowess of many here, it seems.

Clay Death
06-11-2012, 08:24 PM
clay warrior does need to improve but he is far from being one dimensional. not even close.

if you are looking for somebody one dimensional then look no further than sampras.

he is your man. he is the single trick pony.


and i know your problem with nadal: it has more to do with the fact that he has 11 slams and he has them on all surfaces.

your problem is that of mindless blind hate. that is what clouds your judgement about him.

you cant stand it that he has a winning record against all of the best players on the tour.

let the mindless blind hate flow freely.

Allez
06-11-2012, 08:27 PM
clay warrior does need to improve but he is far from being one dimensional. not even close.

if you are looking for somebody one dimensional then look no further than sampras.

he is your man. he is the single trick pony.

Hey CD what did Sampy ever do to you mate :lol:

J99
06-11-2012, 08:28 PM
clay warrior does need to improve but he is far from being one dimensional. not even close.

if you are looking for somebody one dimensional then look no further than sampras.

he is your man. he is the single trick pony.


and i know your problem with nadal: it has more to do with the fact that he has 11 slams and he has them on all surfaces.

your problem is that of mindless blind hate. that is what clouds your judgement about him.

you cant stand it that he has a winning record against all of the best players on the tour.

let the mindless blind hate flow freely.

What are you talking about, he was an all court player, he just served and volleyd cause he liked to and it was most effective, but he could do it all.

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 08:28 PM
clay warrior does need to improve but he is far from being one dimensional. not even close.

if you are looking for somebody one dimensional then look no further than sampras.

he is your man. he is the single trick pony.


and i know your problem with nadal: it has more to do with the fact that he has 11 slams and he has them on all surfaces.

your problem is that of mindless blind hate. that is what clouds your judgement about him.

you cant stand it that he has a winning record against all of the best players on the tour.

let the mindless blind hate flow freely.

What does he have to improve in your opinion, general CD?

Clay Death
06-11-2012, 08:29 PM
Hey CD what did Sampy ever do to you mate :lol:





:drink::haha::haha:

Clay Death
06-11-2012, 08:32 PM
What does he have to improve in your opinion, general CD?


1. i would like to see a better, more effective return

2. better 2nd serve

3. more of a willingness to go forward behind some of his massive approach shots. so a much more confident looking transition game

4. better fitness

5. better backhand


he can do it.

Smoke944
06-11-2012, 08:43 PM
The sheer number of sour losers in this forum should give all of us food for thought. If this is a non-photoshopped snapshot of people calling themselves sportfans (you know, knowing how to lose gracefully and all that).... makes one want to cry.

Why do sportsfans have to lose gracefully when the players don't? I mean do you hold it against Nadal that he is a poor loser? Check the handshakes when he loses to Djokovic and vice versa. But who cares, that hatred of losing is part of why he has 11 grand slams. And though posters on this forum aren't active participants, I don't think that means they can't be equally as passionate. Combine that with the fact that this is an internet forum, so people will naturally let off steam and behave badly in anonymity. Oh well.

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 08:59 PM
1. i would like to see a better, more effective return

He would need more flexibility and less weight... that is, less muscle mass. This can be problematic for the rest of his game.


2. better 2nd serve


He would have to risk more. I think Rafa will only do so when he begin to losing physical power.


3. more of a willingness to go forward behind some his massive approach shots


His grip and his technique needs a extra time in the execution. It's difficult but it would be decisive, of course, specially in order to play a game less exhaustive defensively.


4. better fitness

He can't over-traininng now. Not anymore.


5. better backhand


He has very an adequate technique with a great inside-out swing pattern. He uses his body well to generate power and now he also has the confidence to go for a winner with his backhand from any position on the court.

His opponents game plan has always been to avoid his forehand at any cost. Earlier in his career he tended to just hit the backhand very consistent with a lot of spin and wait for the forehand but those times are over now. I think that's what most he has improved.

Har-Tru
06-11-2012, 09:15 PM
Borg played serve and volley to win Wimbledon and out grinded everyone on clay. He was very versatile unlike Nadal who plays the same way on every surface standing 10 feet behind the baseline trying to be a human practice wall.

He outgrinded everyone on grass too. Borg played S&V on 1st serves only, and not in all of them. His style of play was more agressive on grass, but he still relied on grinding and rallying to win the points.

I like Borg more than Nadal, but I don't think you can say he was more versatile than Nadal, who does change his game when playing on fast surfaces as well.

Har-Tru
06-11-2012, 09:17 PM
At this risk of sounding like SetSampras...
:scratch:
Sampras was amazing on grass, hard, indoor hard, and carpet.
Nadal is amazing on clay and...help me out here. Maybe very good on grass?
Don't see how Sampras is the one-dimensional one.

Nadal is better on his worst surface than Sampras was on his. By far.

The question was whether Nadal will go down as one-dimensional. Considering he has won all slams on all surfaces, while Sampras didn't even get to the final in one of them, I don't see how this is even an issue.

The Borg case is more debatable.

Smoke944
06-11-2012, 09:31 PM
Nadal is better on his worst surface than Sampras was on his. By far.

The question was whether Nadal will go down as one-dimensional. Considering he has won all slams on all surfaces, while Sampras didn't even get to the final in one of them, I don't see how this is even an issue.

The Borg case is more debatable.

Nadal's worst surface was eradicated from the tour once he became powerful enough to have a say about it.

Clay Death
06-11-2012, 09:34 PM
some smart and sensible posts from har-tru.

pay attention ejacuzees.

Fireballer
06-11-2012, 09:39 PM
Sampras never won on clay,Borg only won on clay and grass. He just needs a few more slams to be the GOAT

he will never be the GOAT you mug.

abraxas21
06-11-2012, 09:46 PM
Nadal is better on his worst surface than Sampras was on his. By far.

The question was whether Nadal will go down as one-dimensional. Considering he has won all slams on all surfaces, while Sampras didn't even get to the final in one of them, I don't see how this is even an issue.

The Borg case is more debatable.

:facepalm:

Sampras played in an era where grass wasn't like clay and hardcourts. As the closet rafatard that you have always been, I guess I couldn't ask you to know that in Sampras days the grass wasn't like the grass today. I'd like to see piggy trying to win sets on real grass.

christallh24
06-11-2012, 09:47 PM
No.

abraxas21
06-11-2012, 09:48 PM
1. i would like to see a better, more effective return

2. better 2nd serve

3. more of a willingness to go forward behind some of his massive approach shots. so a much more confident looking transition game

4. better fitness

5. better backhand


he can do it.

he needs to quit embarrassing the sport any further and retire

Orka_n
06-11-2012, 09:49 PM
He will go down as the fucking GOAT, that's what. :baby:You do realize that even IF Nadal overtakes Federer in slam count (which he won't), Nadal still wouldn't be considered goat with that clay-oriented, ugly-ass game. :zzz:

MTwEeZi
06-11-2012, 09:49 PM
Only in the eyes of ejacuzees.

GSMnadal
06-11-2012, 09:55 PM
You do realize that even IF Nadal overtakes Federer in slam count (which he won't), Nadal still wouldn't be considered goat with that clay-oriented, ugly-ass game. :zzz:

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

If Nadal overtakes Fed, add the H2H to that which then becomes more relevant than ever, your pretty boy would be GOAT no more.

ahadabans
06-11-2012, 09:55 PM
1. i would like to see a better, more effective return

2. better 2nd serve

3. more of a willingness to go forward behind some of his massive approach shots. so a much more confident looking transition game

4. better fitness

5. better backhand


I've been thinking about this CD ever since you brought up that you weren't happy with Clay Warrior. I've thought long and hard on it and I really think it boils down to his serve. That was the key to his 2010 season. His serve was great and it was damn near unbelievable at the US Open. He was serving 135 at times and had great placement not just pace. He was mixing it up too where as in recent years he seems to fall into a predictable pattern (out wide to backhand, then down the T, rinse repeat).

I think body serves are an effective strategy that he doesn't utilize enough. And his pace needs to improve overall, not just on the second serve. He works too hard on his own service games, which puts him under pressure when he could be putting pressure on his opponent's service games. That's always been a problem with his game IMO, and it becomes more glaring on surfaces that favor strong serves. When your game lasts 20 minutes and your opponent wins to love in 4 minutes, the pressure is all on you. Not a way to win matches against mentally strong players like Novak.

If Nadal improves his serve to 2010 levels, I think he can compete with Novak on hard courts again. Until then, I think he's going to have a very hard time winning.

ahadabans
06-11-2012, 09:57 PM
:facepalm:

Sampras played in an era where grass wasn't like clay and hardcourts. As the closet rafatard that you have always been, I guess I couldn't ask you to know that in Sampras days the grass wasn't like the grass today. I'd like to see piggy trying to win sets on real grass.

Like Borg won sets on grass? Was it slow during his time too? Then they sped it up for Sampras and then slowed it back down for Nadal? So nice of the ATP to do that so that Borg and Nadal (clay court players) could also succeed at Wimbledon. Quite the conspiracy!

Clay Death
06-11-2012, 10:06 PM
I've been thinking about this CD ever since you brought up that you weren't happy with Clay Warrior. I've thought long and hard on it and I really think it boils down to his serve. That was the key to his 2010 season. His serve was great and it was damn near unbelievable at the US Open. He was serving 135 at times and had great placement not just pace. He was mixing it up too where as in recent years he seems to fall into a predictable pattern (out wide to backhand, then down the T, rinse repeat).

I think body serves are an effective strategy that he doesn't utilize enough. And his pace needs to improve overall, not just on the second serve. He works too hard on his own service games, which puts him under pressure when he could be putting pressure on his opponent's service games. That's always been a problem with his game IMO, and it becomes more glaring on surfaces that favor strong serves. When your game lasts 20 minutes and your opponent wins to love in 4 minutes, the pressure is all on you. Not a way to win matches against mentally strong players like Novak.

If Nadal improves his serve to 2010 levels, I think he can compete with Novak on hard courts again. Until then, I think he's going to have a very hard time winning.




agreed. the serve and the return. both need to be improved and he can make the game a little easier for himself on the hard courts.

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 10:09 PM
:facepalm:

Sampras played in an era where grass wasn't like clay and hardcourts. As the closet rafatard that you have always been, I guess I couldn't ask you to know that in Sampras days the grass wasn't like the grass today. I'd like to see piggy trying to win sets on real grass.

Sampras played in a pathetic era of grass tennis. He even doesn't like playing on the surface, and his first 3 years he was ridiculous. Grass was the worst surface of Agassi. Ivanesevic was a good player, but his mental fortitude was 'Murrayesque'. McEnroe after years of being spanked at Wimbledon rejuvenated in the early nineties when he was 40 years old. Edberg and Becker was very old players then. There was some minor players like Pioline, Krajicek and some more they could beat anyone if they had a very good day like Berdych, Tsonga, Murray, Ferrer, Soderling, etc., but they were not good enough to win a GS.

Looner
06-11-2012, 10:12 PM
Kiedes, Nadal plays in a pathetic era of tennis and especially clay. There.

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 10:15 PM
Kiedes, Nadal plays in a pathetic era of tennis and especially clay. There.

In a good part he shares his era with your hero :wavey:

An shorten your signature, clown. It's almost as annoying as you.

Looner
06-11-2012, 10:17 PM
RF was part of the previous generation where tennis players had balls. Try again. And one swallow does not a summer make.

justine&coria
06-11-2012, 10:23 PM
:facepalm:

Sampras played in an era where grass wasn't like clay and hardcourts. As the closet rafatard that you have always been, I guess I couldn't ask you to know that in Sampras days the grass wasn't like the grass today. I'd like to see piggy trying to win sets on real grass.
And what ? He played the same way on every surface...

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 10:33 PM
RF was part of the previous generation where tennis players had balls. Try again. And one swallow does not a summer make.

There was some good players when Roger won everything.

I remember true warriors like Hewitt, whose career ended early for the top tennis when he brokes his hip, very talented players like Hass and his endless injuries, Nalbandian and his love for the burgers, Safin and his love for the parties, alcohol, cigarettes and girls. And then this Russian guy, Davydenko, who was a dangerous player in 3 sets, but he did not have enough physical strength to play 5 sets (he was like a kind of excellent indoor footballer, excuse me the comparison). Same case as Ferrero, who also had many injury problems too due to their lack of physical strength. And then we have over average players like Roddick and Bagdhatis who in normal conditions would never had even a shot to win a GS.

Not very exciting, if you ask me.

rocketassist
06-11-2012, 10:50 PM
And what ? He played the same way on every surface...

He won less at the AO (slower hardcourt) and never got close to winning RG. Your point?

rocketassist
06-11-2012, 10:52 PM
Sampras played in a pathetic era of grass tennis. He even doesn't like playing on the surface, and his first 3 years he was ridiculous. Grass was the worst surface of Agassi. Ivanesevic was a good player, but his mental fortitude was 'Murrayesque'. McEnroe after years of being spanked at Wimbledon rejuvenated in the early nineties when he was 40 years old. Edberg and Becker was very old players then. There was some minor players like Pioline, Krajicek and some more they could beat anyone if they had a very good day like Berdych, Tsonga, Murray, Ferrer, Soderling, etc., but they were not good enough to win a GS.

McEnroe, Becker, Ivanisevic, Agassi, Krajicek, Henman, Pioline, Philippoussis, Rafter and more. Shit grass field that.

SerialKillerToBe
06-11-2012, 10:54 PM
Sampras played in a pathetic era of grass tennis. He even doesn't like playing on the surface, and his first 3 years he was ridiculous. Grass was the worst surface of Agassi. Ivanesevic was a good player, but his mental fortitude was 'Murrayesque'. McEnroe after years of being spanked at Wimbledon rejuvenated in the early nineties when he was 40 years old. Edberg and Becker was very old players then. There was some minor players like Pioline, Krajicek and some more they could beat anyone if they had a very good day like Berdych, Tsonga, Murray, Ferrer, Soderling, etc., but they were not good enough to win a GS.

Grass era in the 90s was light years ahead of clay era in the late 00's.

BigJohn
06-11-2012, 10:56 PM
He'll be remembered has a clay specialist that had some success outside of clay. His resume speaks for itself...

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 11:03 PM
McEnroe, Becker, Ivanisevic, Agassi, Krajicek, Henman, Pioline, Philippoussis, Rafter and more. Shit grass field that.

How old was McEnroe when he was semifinalist at Wimbledon in 1992? When Pete won his first Wimbledon (against a claycourter) Becker was a grandpa too and Philippoussis didn't even played tennis. Don't be so cheater to throw big names without mention us their circumstances.

careergrandslam
06-11-2012, 11:08 PM
nadal is nothing but a clay specialist.
vast majority of his titles are on clay.
he fluked a few non-clay titles.

he has no attacking game, when nole is not missing, nadal is forced to attack, but since he doesnt have the talent to play attacking tennis, he makes errors as he is taken out of his comfort zone.
no one likes nadal's game, it relies on opponents errors, its very unwatchable tennis.

he is very one dimensional, once his plan A is gone, he gets beat. the guy has no talent, just stamina to outlast opponents. he couldnt do that nole. thus, nole humiliated the goo out of nadal last year.

justine&coria
06-11-2012, 11:22 PM
nadal is nothing but a clay specialist.
vast majority of his titles are on clay.
he fluked a few non-clay titles.

he has no attacking game, when nole is not missing, nadal is forced to attack, but since he doesnt have the talent to play attacking tennis, he makes errors as he is taken out of his comfort zone.
no one likes nadal's game, it relies on opponents errors, its very unwatchable tennis.

he is very one dimensional, once his plan A is gone, he gets beat. the guy has no talent, just stamina to outlast opponents. he couldnt do that nole. thus, nole humiliated the goo out of nadal last year.
It's funny because you're the kind of guy who would say that Nole's game is the best ever. Finishing second to him in the previous slams, is it that bad ?

ahadabans
06-11-2012, 11:27 PM
agreed. the serve and the return. both need to be improved and he can make the game a little easier for himself on the hard courts.

Nadal gets too much flack for his return game IMO. I think it's better than he gets credit for. It looks worse than it is because you have amazing returners like Novak and Murray - two of the best in recent history. Nadal just looks average in comparison, but his return is not a huge liability like his serve can be at times. He gets a lot of break chances.

Clay Warrior's serve has gotten better, but he needs to improve it more. It has definitely regressed since 2010. Him being right handed serving left handed though may have put a ceiling on it however. He's already doing more with this serve than he probably should really have been able to do.

Har-Tru
06-11-2012, 11:28 PM
Nadal's worst surface was eradicated from the tour once he became powerful enough to have a say about it.

The ATP was obeying Nadal's commands when he was 16?

:facepalm:

Sampras played in an era where grass wasn't like clay and hardcourts. As the closet rafatard that you have always been, I guess I couldn't ask you to know that in Sampras days the grass wasn't like the grass today. I'd like to see piggy trying to win sets on real grass.

Why is it I keep being accused of being a Rafatard by Fedtards, a Fedtard by Rafatards...

If you'd read my post you'd see I was pointing at Sampras's inability on clay, not at his ability on grass.

The grass that has been shamefully slowed down is the one at Wimbledon. Queen's, where Nadal has won not only a set but the whole tournament, is still played on the same grass that Sampras played on.

rocketassist
06-11-2012, 11:31 PM
How old was McEnroe when he was semifinalist at Wimbledon in 1992? When Pete won his first Wimbledon (against a claycourter) Becker was a grandpa too and Philippoussis didn't even played tennis. Don't be so cheater to throw big names without mention us their circumstances.

Philippoussis did play tennis, reached a Wimbledon final and was a tough player to break on fast grass, but overlook that.

McEnroe was 32/33 that year. And Becker was 27 in 1994.

Har-Tru
06-11-2012, 11:38 PM
Sampras played in a pathetic era of grass tennis. He even doesn't like playing on the surface, and his first 3 years he was ridiculous. Grass was the worst surface of Agassi. Ivanesevic was a good player, but his mental fortitude was 'Murrayesque'. McEnroe after years of being spanked at Wimbledon rejuvenated in the early nineties when he was 40 years old. Edberg and Becker was very old players then. There was some minor players like Pioline, Krajicek and some more they could beat anyone if they had a very good day like Berdych, Tsonga, Murray, Ferrer, Soderling, etc., but they were not good enough to win a GS.

So much fail in one post... if only today's era had 10% of the grass game Sampras's era had.

Har-Tru
06-11-2012, 11:42 PM
How old was McEnroe when he was semifinalist at Wimbledon in 1992? When Pete won his first Wimbledon (against a claycourter) Becker was a grandpa too and Philippoussis didn't even played tennis. Don't be so cheater to throw big names without mention us their circumstances.

Boris Becker was 25 years old when Sampras won his first Wimbledon in 1993.

If that's being a grandpa, then I guess Nadal is a great-grandpa and Federer is about to exhale his last breath...

Kiedis
06-11-2012, 11:49 PM
Boris Becker was 25 years old when Sampras won his first Wimbledon in 1993.

If that's being a grandpa, then I guess Nadal is a great-grandpa and Federer is about to exhale his last breath...

Boom boom won his first Wimbledon at 17. When he was 25 he was done.

ahadabans
06-11-2012, 11:57 PM
He'll be remembered has a clay specialist that had some success outside of clay. His resume speaks for itself...

"Some" success? 4 non-clay slams is "some" success off clay? Right.

I just looked it up on Wikipedia. There are only 29 players in men's tennis history with more than 4 slams TOTAL (and that includes French Open titles, not just non-clay slams).

Let me ask you a question. If a player ended his career with 6 slams (2 RG, 2 Wimbledon, 1 US and 1 Australian), would you say he had "some" success off clay? Give me a damn break.

star
06-11-2012, 11:59 PM
So much fail in one post... if only today's era had 10% of the grass game Sampras's era had.

Sampras played on the fast grass courts when the courts were torn up at the net and down the T by the time the final came around. He had more trouble at Wimbledon when they began to slow down the grass. He could still win with ease at Queens, but Wimbledon became more iffy. He lost to George Bastl and Roger Federer on this slower grass.

There was a great deal of criticism about Wimbledon and the very short points and the way a big server could dominate that led to the Wimbledon taking steps to slow the court down. All this is to say, that Sampras even at his prime might have more difficulty with the current Wimbledon grass. Today’s game makes a pure serve a volley game as we used to see on grass, unlikely to succeed.

ahadabans
06-12-2012, 12:19 AM
Today’s game makes a pure serve a volley game as we used to see on grass, unlikely to succeed.

That has less to do with the surface and more to do with racket technology. Hard to serve and volley when you can hit 100 MPH forehand passing shots on the run. That has nothing to do with the court. That kind of thing was impossible 20 years ago.

For all this nonsense about grass slowing down over the years, I think it's greatly exaggerated. The bounce has gotten more consistent maybe with better grass, but the basic mechanics haven't changed much. Grass is still grass after all unless they are genetically engineering something else and calling it grass.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
06-12-2012, 12:24 AM
You do realize that even IF Nadal overtakes Federer in slam count (which he won't), Nadal still wouldn't be considered goat with that clay-oriented, ugly-ass game. :zzz:

If Nadal overtakes Fed in Slam count (and he may well do) then he will have to be considered a greater player than Fed. The only real test is: what have you won? Anything else is fanboy BS and everyone skews the "arguments" to suit their favorite.

BigJohn
06-12-2012, 12:25 AM
"Some" success? 4 non-clay slams is "some" success off clay? Right.

I just looked it up on Wikipedia. There are only 29 players in men's tennis history with more than 4 slams TOTAL (and that includes French Open titles, not just non-clay slams).

Let me ask you a question. If a player ended his career with 6 slams (2 RG, 2 Wimbledon, 1 US and 1 Australian), would you say he had "some" success off clay? Give me a damn break.

Yeah, some success.

GS titles: 7/11 clay

Masters: 16/21 clay

That's a lot of clay. So a clay specialist that has had some success off clay.

ahadabans
06-12-2012, 12:29 AM
Yeah, some success.

GS titles: 7/11 clay

Masters: 16/21 clay

That's a lot of clay. So a clay specialist that has had some success off clay.

So 4 non-clay slams is "some" success? What the hell is great success then? How many players fit that bill? Three in history?

So Novak has only had "some" success off clay? After all, he's only got 5 non-clay slams. Or does 5 jump from "some" to "great".

And if Nadal gets another Wimbledon, will he then have "great" success?

rocketassist
06-12-2012, 12:40 AM
Sampras played on the fast grass courts when the courts were torn up at the net and down the T by the time the final came around. He had more trouble at Wimbledon when they began to slow down the grass. He could still win with ease at Queens, but Wimbledon became more iffy. He lost to George Bastl and Roger Federer on this slower grass.

There was a great deal of criticism about Wimbledon and the very short points and the way a big server could dominate that led to the Wimbledon taking steps to slow the court down. All this is to say, that Sampras even at his prime might have more difficulty with the current Wimbledon grass. Today’s game makes a pure serve a volley game as we used to see on grass, unlikely to succeed.

Agassi made a couple of finals and won one, Rafter made finals. A few non-big servers did well, but they still saw fit to slow it.

rocketassist
06-12-2012, 12:42 AM
Boom boom won his first Wimbledon at 17. When he was 25 he was done.

Why did he go and win an Australian Open in 96 then?

ahadabans
06-12-2012, 12:58 AM
Agassi made a couple of finals and won one, Rafter made finals. A few non-big servers did well, but they still saw fit to slow it.

Rubbish. Racket technology changed the game. The courts themselves are not much different.

Clay Death
06-12-2012, 01:05 AM
So 4 non-clay slams is "some" success? What the hell is great success then? How many players fit that bill? Three in history?

So Novak has only had "some" success off clay? After all, he's only got 5 non-clay slams. Or does 5 jump from "some" to "great".

And if Nadal gets another Wimbledon, will he then have "great" success?



that is way too much sense at any one given time for ejaculon general jeff.

can you dumb it down a little?

all of pete sampras slams were on quick courts. does that make him worthless?

15 of fed`s 16 slams are on quicker surfaces so does that make useless as a player.

johnny mac: 77 singles titles and 77 doubles titles and zero french open titles. that must make him pathetic since zero titles at RG.


becker: zero clay titles as an atp tourning pro. zero. wow. how worthless can becker be.


they love to jump on the clay warrior and yet they dont know shit from shoe polish.

more tennis and more varied tennis is played on clay than any other surface.

ask nole, fed, sampras, johnny mac, connors, newcombe, and some others how hard it is to win a single french open let alone 7 of them.

as great as these players were and they are all time greats but they still found RG the hardest slam to win.

Topspindoctor
06-12-2012, 01:12 AM
Lol. I guess 4 slams off clay and multiple finals are just an illusion :sad:

ahadabans
06-12-2012, 01:17 AM
more tennis and more varied tennis is played on clay than any other surface.

ask nole, fed, sampras, johnny mac, connors, newcombe, and some others how hard it is to win a single french open let alone 7 of them.

as great as these players were and they are all time greats but they still found RG the hardest slam to win.

Right on the money CD!

I love clay tennis because it is such a test of endurance and will. No other slam requires you to dig deep like the French. You can't just serve your way to victory or slam 100 MPH flat forehands and blow people off the court. It requires you to actually construct points, defend until you get an advantage and press at the right time. It's much more tactical than the other surfaces. Plus what other surface can you come back from double or even triple break down? It's exciting tennis.

Not to say I don't like grass and hard courts - I do. They bring a different spin on the game. Grass is fast and furious and holding serve is paramount. Hard courts bring a lot of variety to the game and a nice balance between serve importance and ground game. But as a personal preference, I like clay the best.

Looner
06-12-2012, 01:20 AM
More varied tennis is not played on clay. A pusher winning for the past 8 years just goes to prove it.

Topspindoctor
06-12-2012, 01:22 AM
More varied tennis is not play on clay. A pusher winning for the past 8 years just goes to prove it.

Pusher, huh? What does that make Mugray?

BigJohn
06-12-2012, 01:25 AM
that is way too much sense at any one given time for ejaculon general jeff.

can you dumb it down a little?

all of pete sampras slams were on quick courts. does that make him worthless?

15 of fed`s 16 slams are on quicker surfaces so does that make useless as a player.

johnny mac: 77 singles titles and 77 doubles titles and zero french open titles. that must make him pathetic since zero titles at RG.


becker: zero clay titles as an atp tourning pro. zero. wow. how worthless can becker be.


they love to jump on the clay warrior and yet they dont know shit from shoe polish.

more tennis and more varied tennis is played on clay than any other surface.

ask nole, fed, sampras, johnny mac, connors, newcombe, and some others how hard it is to win a single french open let alone 7 of them.

as great as these players were and they are all time greats but they still found RG the hardest slam to win.

Lol. I guess 4 slams off clay and multiple finals are just an illusion :sad:

Right on the money CD!

I love clay tennis because it is such a test of endurance and will. No other slam requires you to dig deep like the French. You can't just serve your way to victory or slam 100 MPH flat forehands and blow people off the court. It requires you to actually construct points, defend until you get an advantage and press at the right time. It's much more tactical than the other surfaces. Plus what other surface can you come back from double or even triple break down? It's exciting tennis.

Not to say I don't like grass and hard courts - I do. They bring a different spin on the game. Grass is fast and furious and holding serve is paramount. Hard courts bring a lot of variety to the game and a nice balance between serve importance and ground game. But as a personal preference, I like clay the best.

Asinus asinum fricat

ahadabans
06-12-2012, 01:32 AM
More varied tennis is not play on clay. A pusher winning for the past 8 years just goes to prove it.

Tactical is a better word I think. And if you think Nadal is a pusher, you don't know much about tennis.

Clay Death
06-12-2012, 01:32 AM
Right on the money CD!

I love clay tennis because it is such a test of endurance and will. No other slam requires you to dig deep like the French. You can't just serve your way to victory or slam 100 MPH flat forehands and blow people off the court. It requires you to actually construct points, defend until you get an advantage and press at the right time. It's much more tactical than the other surfaces. Plus what other surface can you come back from double or even triple break down? It's exciting tennis.

Not to say I don't like grass and hard courts - I do. They bring a different spin on the game. Grass is fast and furious and holding serve is paramount. Hard courts bring a lot of variety to the game and a nice balance between serve importance and ground game. But as a personal preference, I like clay the best.


spot on general.

tactics, strategy, court intelligence, ridiculous movement, sick offense, and even sicker defense. what other surface requires that? and every shot you can imagine and then some is what the surface demands.

physical endurance, mental tenacity, sheer physical strength, emotional discipline, and blinding speed is what you need that clay and you need it all for hours and hours at an event like RG.

even 10 great shots are not enough on clay. they might come back with interest.


anyway i dont need to waste my time with legless ejacuzees. you have to have played this game on clay at a reasonably high level to truly understand clay.

here people are just into mindless blind hate. blind hate makes it hard for them understand the art and the beauty of clay.

Mountaindewslave
06-12-2012, 02:12 AM
obviously a player who adjusts his style to win all events off of clay is not "One Dimensional". Raonic is a bit one dimensional. Muster was one dimensional. Roddick was and is relatively on dimensional. etc etc. these are players who do not change their styles ever and who don't have a real plan B. Nadal does, as seen with his dramatic changes in style of play at US OPEN over the years as well as beginning in 2007 at Wimbledon.

the guy has lots of variety and the will to train hard to change.

this thread is silly and immature, anyone with common sense will recognize that Nadal adapts and adjusts his game according to his surroundings, which therefore would make him anything but one dimensional.

Sharpshooter
06-12-2012, 02:33 AM
More varied tennis is not played on clay. A pusher winning for the past 8 years just goes to prove it.

Nadal hit 34 winners to Novak's 39. You have egg on your face now, get out of here and go wash it off.

Looner
06-12-2012, 02:45 AM
Nadal hit 34 winners to Novak's 39. You have egg on your face now, get out of here and go wash it off.

Do not tell me what to do. And you are still wrong. Numbers prove nothing when RN does not allow you to hit a winner due to better pushing ability :wavey:.

Clay Death
06-12-2012, 02:53 AM
i recommend bass fishing tournaments for those who cant handle the sport of tennis. so much easier to follow and of course a lot less frustration and misery.

ahadabans
06-12-2012, 03:22 AM
Nadal hit 34 winners to Novak's 39. You have egg on your face now, get out of here and go wash it off.

And because he had 5 fewer winners, that makes him a pusher? Novak had 53 unforced errors. That's a minus 19 winner to UE ratio. So does that make Novak a ball basher then?

See how easy it is to cherry pick a number, misapply it completely out of context, and then come up with what amounts to baseless crap?

abraxas21
06-12-2012, 04:09 AM
a straight line drawed on paper has more dimentions than nadull

stewietennis
06-12-2012, 04:10 AM
Do not tell me what to do. And you are still wrong. Numbers prove nothing when RN does not allow you to hit a winner due to better pushing ability :wavey:.

Err… does any tennis player "allow" anyone to hit winners against them?

abraxas21
06-12-2012, 04:12 AM
Like Borg won sets on grass? Was it slow during his time too? Then they sped it up for Sampras and then slowed it back down for Nadal? So nice of the ATP to do that so that Borg and Nadal (clay court players) could also succeed at Wimbledon. Quite the conspiracy!

fail

borg actually drastically changed his playing style from RG to Wimbledon. today that type of adaptability isn't required because every court fucking plays the same

abraxas21
06-12-2012, 04:15 AM
Sampras played in a pathetic era of grass tennis. He even doesn't like playing on the surface, and his first 3 years he was ridiculous. Grass was the worst surface of Agassi. Ivanesevic was a good player, but his mental fortitude was 'Murrayesque'. McEnroe after years of being spanked at Wimbledon rejuvenated in the early nineties when he was 40 years old. Edberg and Becker was very old players then. There was some minor players like Pioline, Krajicek and some more they could beat anyone if they had a very good day like Berdych, Tsonga, Murray, Ferrer, Soderling, etc., but they were not good enough to win a GS.

your hero barely wins matches against gilles muller in the first week of wimbledon when the grass is new so be quiet.

sampras played in a "pathetic era of grass tennis"? you simply do not know what you're talking about. nadal would struggle to win a set against the likes of pioline, krajicek, etc.

rocketassist
06-12-2012, 04:17 AM
Rubbish. Racket technology changed the game. The courts themselves are not much different.

Hahaha get off the crystal meth kiddo.

Topspindoctor
06-12-2012, 04:17 AM
your hero barely wins matches against gilles muller in the first week of wimbledon when the grass is new so be quiet.

sampras played in a "pathetic era of grass tennis"? you simply do not know what you're talking about. nadal would struggle to win a set against the likes of pioline, krajicek, etc.

You are a joke who is still living in the past. Nadal would humiliate mugs Sampras had to beat to win his clown Wimbledons. Nadal's serve on fast grass would be unbreakable as he holds 90%+ of the time on modern grass. You don't know shit about tennis, so I suggest you stfu before you get another chance to embarrass yourself.

ahadabans
06-12-2012, 04:21 AM
fail

borg actually drastically changed his playing style from RG to Wimbledon. today that type of adaptability isn't required because every court fucking plays the same

If every court played the same, Nadal would have 7 US, Aussie and Wimbledons to go along with his 7 Roland Garros titles.

Are you seriously going to try and tell me that court changes over the years have made a bigger impact on the game than racket technology? That's beyond ridiculous.

abraxas21
06-12-2012, 04:21 AM
Nadal would humiliate mugs Sampras had to beat to win his clown Wimbledons.

:spit:

Nadal's serve on fast grass would be unbreakable

:spit:

You don't know shit about tennis, so I suggest you stfu before you get another chance to embarrass yourself.

coming from you, i'll take it as a compliment. now go watch some videos of rafa fistpumping.

ahadabans
06-12-2012, 04:23 AM
Hahaha get off the crystal meth kiddo.

Same question to you clown. Are you seriously going to tell me that you believe court changes have changed the game more than racket changes? Because if you are, you don't know anything about tennis.

rocketassist
06-12-2012, 04:23 AM
If every court played the same, Nadal would have 7 US, Aussie and Wimbledons to go along with his 7 Roland Garros titles.

Are you seriously going to try and tell me that court changes over the years have made a bigger impact on the game than racket technology? That's beyond ridiculous.

They're similar in speed which is the key factor. On clay Nadal's topspin and the bounce of the courts mean it's impossible to hit through him. But if you saw Berd-Nad at the AO you'd have seen Berdych play lights out for two sets and still struggle to hit through him. Why? Because the surface is slower than ass.

abraxas21
06-12-2012, 04:25 AM
If every court played the same, Nadal would have 7 US, Aussie and Wimbledons to go along with his 7 Roland Garros titles.

way to take things literally but i'll make it real easy for you. surface homogenization doesn't mean every court plays the same; it means that court are getting more and more similar and that allows players like rafito to win a lot without the need to change their game styles. in borg's time that did not happen.


Are you seriously going to try and tell me that court changes over the years have made a bigger impact on the game than racket technology? That's beyond ridiculous.

nope, i'm simply saying you do not know what you're talking about

SheepleBuster
06-12-2012, 04:26 AM
I gotta be honest. No sane person considers RG a slam. To me it's lower than the year ending championship and probably less important than some of the masters tournaments. So Nadal really has only 4 slams. Better than Roddick I guess. haha

ahadabans
06-12-2012, 04:27 AM
They're similar in speed which is the key factor. On clay Nadal's topspin and the bounce of the courts mean it's impossible to hit through him . But if you saw Berd-Nad at the AO you'd have seen Berdych play lights out for two sets and still struggle to hit through him. Why? Because the surface is slower than ass.

That would mean the courts don't play the same, which invalidates your original argument.

ahadabans
06-12-2012, 04:28 AM
I gotta be honest. No sane person considers RG a slam. To me it's lower than the year ending championship and probably less important than some of the masters tournaments. So Nadal really has only 4 slams. Better than Roddick I guess. haha

LOL. Wow, you are bitter. How's that working out for you?

Topspindoctor
06-12-2012, 04:29 AM
I gotta be honest. No sane person considers RG a slam. To me it's lower than the year ending championship and probably less important than some of the masters tournaments. So Nadal really has only 4 slams. Better than Roddick I guess. haha

:haha:

SheepleBuster
06-12-2012, 04:36 AM
LOL. Wow, you are bitter. How's that working out for you?

I just said what all of us know to be true. I mean even in WTA events they don't pull bush league stuff like halting a player's momentum when the other player is this close to getting double sticked in the 4th and 5th. And Tony Nadal was taking a page out of WTA literally telling Rafa what shot to hit every time. But even if Nole had won it, I would have thought the same. If you ain't got night lights for play, you are not a grand slam but a village tournament. At this point, there is more honor in winning Houston Championships than RG

ahadabans
06-12-2012, 04:37 AM
way to take things literally but i'll make it real easy for you. surface homogenization doesn't mean every court plays the same; it means that court are getting more and more similar and that allows players like rafito to win a lot without the need to change their game styles. in borg's time that did not happen.


If players today were forced to play with wooden rackets, it would require different styles of play simply because it would be impossible to hit winners on the run 10 meters behind the baseline. That's racket technology buddy. It has nothing to do with the courts.

You can argue the game was better back then because it made lost arts like serve and volley viable. But the game has changed with the rackets. It is what it is. And that's why it's difficult to compare different eras.

Back to the original point of this thread - Nadal's supposed one-dimensional game. His game is no less one-dimensional than Novak's or Federer. Both guys play the same game on every surface. And Nadal has had to improve a great number of areas of his game to become competitive off clay. To say otherwise is simply being a blind hater.

Sure 100% rye grass is a little slower than the older blends (primarily because the truer and higher bounce), but you make it sound like court speeds have been cut in half or something. It's just a silly thing to say. The difference are minor. Give the players of Sampras's era today's rackets and it would look like today's game.

allpro
06-12-2012, 04:38 AM
mental strength is the ultimate dimension.

ahadabans
06-12-2012, 04:38 AM
I just said what all of us know to be true. I mean even in WTA events they don't pull bush league stuff like halting a player's momentum when the other player is this close to getting double sticked in the 4th and 5th. And Tony Nadal was taking a page out of WTA literally telling Rafa what shot to hit every time. But even if Nole had won it, I would have thought the same. If you ain't got night lights for play, you are not a grand slam but a village tournament. At this point, there is more honor in winning Houston Championships than RG

Oh man. OK. Your an idiot. I get it now. I'll be sure to ignore your posts going forward. Thanks for the clarification.

rocketassist
06-12-2012, 04:40 AM
That would mean the courts don't play the same, which invalidates your original argument.

Not the 'exact' same but the speeds are VERY similar, with MINOR differences the main one being movement.

Topspindoctor
06-12-2012, 04:42 AM
Not the 'exact' same but the speeds are VERY similar, with MINOR differences the main one being movement.

So why did all the big servers go out in the first week of RG?

SheepleBuster
06-12-2012, 04:42 AM
Oh man. OK. Your an idiot. I get it now. I'll be sure to ignore your posts going forward. Thanks for the clarification.

That's funny. haha. Whatever man. I am sick and tired of Rafatards trolling all day. All fucking day long. lol. I am just giving you a taste of what you people sound like. Making Nadal to be something special. Mark my words. All of those are coming back friend. Someone will write a book, They always do :devil:

ahadabans
06-12-2012, 04:42 AM
Not the 'exact' same but the speeds are VERY similar, with MINOR differences the main one being movement.

See now your backpedaling.

And there is no way you can reasonably argue that the US Open or Wimbledon are as slow as Roland Garros. The only way you can say that is if you don't watch matches at these tournaments.

Houstonko
06-12-2012, 04:43 AM
They're similar in speed which is the key factor. On clay Nadal's topspin and the bounce of the courts mean it's impossible to hit through him. But if you saw Berd-Nad at the AO you'd have seen Berdych play lights out for two sets and still struggle to hit through him. Why? Because the surface is slower than ass.

Its due to the bounce not slick enough. It must jump fast upon touching the floor like madrid clay. In the past wimbledon is like madrid 2012 or bercy 2011. Most of the surface today 90% on Masters events, ball slow down dramatically upon touching ground.

rocketassist
06-12-2012, 04:45 AM
See now your backpedaling.

And there is no way you can reasonably argue that the US Open or Wimbledon are as slow as Roland Garros. The only way you can say that is if you don't watch matches at these tournaments.

They're not 'as' slow as RG but they're still slow. And Llodra claims RG courts are faster than Wimbledon. His words hold more water than some no-mark on a forum.

And it's 'you're'- if 'you're' from the US, an English speaking country you shouldn't be getting them two mixed up.

Houstonko
06-12-2012, 04:46 AM
That's funny. haha. Whatever man. I am sick and tired of Rafatards trolling all day. All fucking day long. lol. I am just giving you a taste of what you people sound like. Making Nadal to be something special. Mark my words. All of those are coming back friend. Someone will write a book, They always do :devil:

Every tennis player will fall, it has been happening forever. When tennis player reach certain age his game look sad and resolute and young guys bully him. Its like past glories have been forgotten.

ahadabans
06-12-2012, 04:49 AM
That's funny. haha. Whatever man. I am sick and tired of Rafatards trolling all day. All fucking day long. lol. I am just giving you a taste of what you people sound like. Making Nadal to be something special. Mark my words. All of those are coming back friend. Someone will write a book, They always do :devil:

Nadal is something special. What he's done in his career is simply remarkable.

And by that same token, so are Federer's accomplishments. That guy is a legend. Incredible how he dominated tennis for so long. I couldn't wait for the guy to lose, but he deserved every title he won and I'll shed a tear when he retires because he single handedly changed the game.

Novak is a great champion as well. His 2011 year is probably the single best year in tennis history. He has an amazingly complete game and has proven in the last 18 months that his Australian win years ago was not a fluke. As a Rafa fan, I get nervous thinking about Nadal potentially having to play him at future slams because he's such a tough competitor and so hard to beat.

Still think I'm a rafatard? I love tennis and I have great respect for the elite players in this game. What I don't have respect for are posters who act ignorant, rude and try to provoke people into flame wars. Go somewhere else if you are going to be an asshat.

ahadabans
06-12-2012, 04:52 AM
They're not 'as' slow as RG but they're still slow. And Llodra claims RG courts are faster than Wimbledon. His words hold more water than some no-mark on a forum.

And it's 'you're'- if 'you're' from the US, an English speaking country you shouldn't be getting them two mixed up.

More backpedaling and now the best you have are grammar corrections. Seriously man.

Houstonko
06-12-2012, 04:57 AM
You are a joke who is still living in the past. Nadal would humiliate mugs Sampras had to beat to win his clown Wimbledons. Nadal's serve on fast grass would be unbreakable as he holds 90%+ of the time on modern grass. You don't know shit about tennis, so I suggest you stfu before you get another chance to embarrass yourself.

Don't give one dimensional argument. He is able to hold 90% of the time due to rallies, not serve. This is enough to show wimbledon surface is not slick.

Clay Death
06-12-2012, 04:59 AM
SheeppleBuster step away from the crack pipe.

and dont let neuroejaculitis strike you time and again.