Winning 7 Slams.... What's more impressive? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Winning 7 Slams.... What's more impressive?

SheepleBuster
06-12-2012, 04:10 AM
We all know that Nadal and Sampras have won 7 slams in the same tournament. I personally think winning 7 times on a surface such as the U.S. Open or AO is more challenging. What's your take? Who are you impressed with the most? Sampras or Nadal? Winning which slam 7 times is the hardest in your opinion?

Mountaindewslave
06-12-2012, 04:18 AM
seven Roland Garros's is harder than seven Wimbledon's obviously. clay is more grinding and wearing on the body, so more often than not a a great clay court player will lose their abilities way too early.

with a great SErve and fast grass, ala Sampras, a player could dominate grass without too much trouble, clay on the other hand is so physical.

clay might be the hardest, Roland Garros 7 times is insane. i'm not just saying this because of the current events either but because clay is just so taxing on the body. if Nadal had not started out so well so young it would never be possible but examples like Goran Ivansevic show that even an older player serving out of the lights can win Wimbledon randomly. clay is less random because of how much works it takes to win Roland Garros

Topspindoctor
06-12-2012, 04:18 AM
RG is THE hardest slam to win physically. To win 7 is just inhuman.

To me what Nadal did on the surface is just sick. More impressive than 7 Wimbledons, especially on 90's grass where you could serve your way through the match.

Sampras would be puking all over the court if he had to play one match as physical as Nadal does on clay.

Houstonko
06-12-2012, 04:21 AM
Dont compare apples with oranges. Winning 7 Wimbledons are hard in simlar fashion too. Nadal will never get the serve similar to Sampras not getting the physical str.

SheepleBuster
06-12-2012, 04:21 AM
RG is THE hardest slam to win physically. To win 7 is just inhuman.

To me what Nadal did on the surface is just sick. More impressive than 7 Wimbledons, especially on 90's grass where you could serve your way through the match.

Sampras would be puking all over the court if he had to play one match as physical as Nadal does on clay.

I don't know. Grass when it was fast, someone could serve 3 sets lights out and beat you in tie-breaks, no? Whereas on clay, Rafa is so much better in the clay court game that people do not get lucky. So the chances of Rafa losing even sets before a final are always remote (except last year where the conditions were a bit whacky).

SheepleBuster
06-12-2012, 04:21 AM
Dont compare apples with oranges. Winning 7 Wimbledons are hard in simlar fashion too. Nadal will never get the serve similar to Sampras not getting the physical str.

Not comparing them. I think winning 7 US Opens is the hardest. Hard courts are not easy on the body and more people know how to play on them. That's just a fact :)

hipolymer
06-12-2012, 04:28 AM
Not comparing them. I think winning 7 US Opens is the hardest. Hard courts are not easy on the body and more people know how to play on them. That's just a fact :)

This is correct and must be taken into account. This current era is hard court heavy: 2 slams, world tour final, and 6 masters titles on hard courts = more players being better on hard court.

AntiTennis
06-12-2012, 04:32 AM
You can't compare :rolleyes:

BroTree123
06-12-2012, 05:08 AM
Definitely RG simply because it's physically demanding. Don't underestimate how hard Nadal has worked all his life to get to this point. The fact that so few can take him down on clay in general, means they just don't have what it takes mentally and physically to beat him.

viruzzz
06-12-2012, 05:15 AM
Sorry, but I don't understand the question.
Winning 7 slams of the same one is something just SO BIG.
Who cares which slam is? It's so fuckin big, it's amazing.

Henry Chinaski
06-12-2012, 05:31 AM
when exactly did Nadal have to win a physically demanding Roland Garros?

matches aren't particularly physical when you're so much better than the competition that you barely drop sets.

in the current era, winning 7 on a hardcourt would be most impressive simply because the level of competition is a bit deeper.

there are fuck all clay or grass specialists left

Chase Visa
06-12-2012, 05:32 AM
RG's probably better due to how much clay hurts your body, but there were more good grass-courters in Sampras's time than good clay-courters in Nadal's time.

MIMIC
06-12-2012, 05:33 AM
Once you get to seven ANYWHERE, it's pretty pointless to quibble over the location.

scarecrows
06-12-2012, 05:40 AM
Sampras had to play against far more dangerous players on the surface

Ash86
06-12-2012, 06:19 AM
Sampras had to play against far more dangerous players on the surface

Sampras could serve himself to the title. And really - how many other all time greats did Sampras face in those finals? Nadal has won 5 of the 7 against Federer & Djokovic, one against Soderling - the only guy to have beaten him on best of 5. These aren't mugs - the former are incredible players who'd have FAR more claycourt titles if it wasn't for Nadal stopping them every time.

7 Wimbledons, 7 RGs - both are VERY impressive. Nadal takes it IMO as he has 7 in 8 appearances, vs 7 in 14 appearances for Sampras. Nadal's number may go down but he probably won't get to 14 appearances anyway so his % will always be higher.

leng jai
06-12-2012, 06:56 AM
Arguments for both. Clay is a tough surface to dominate but the depth of the competition is poor now. Grass is easy on the body and a GOAT serve got you 80% there in the old days.

To sum up:

7 at RG if you're a Rafito tard.
7 at Wimbledon if you're a Sampras tard.

born_on_clay
06-12-2012, 07:32 AM
7rg >7w

GSMnadal
06-12-2012, 07:34 AM
I think Rogie's 5 US Opens are even more impressive than the 7 of Rafa and Pete. He really is the GOAT :inlove:

MaxPower
06-12-2012, 08:14 AM
when exactly did Nadal have to win a physically demanding Roland Garros?

matches aren't particularly physical when you're so much better than the competition that you barely drop sets.

in the current era, winning 7 on a hardcourt would be most impressive simply because the level of competition is a bit deeper.

there are fuck all clay or grass specialists left

Agree.

RG's probably better due to how much clay hurts your body, but there were more good grass-courters in Sampras's time than good clay-courters in Nadal's time.


Really? Played tennis yourself? clay is nice on your body. Players like Safin who often suffered knee problems went away to practice on clay to save his body. Clay is much easier on your body than hc or grass. Less impact and less stress on joints. Compare with say a hard indoor court. That's hurts your body. If you played Nadal style and tried to defend your way to titles on a hard surface your body would be wrecked.

But look at Nadal. He plays all these long rallies on clay waiting for errors and seems just fine. That just proves clay is easy on your body.

leng jai
06-12-2012, 08:17 AM
Hard court is 10 times worse for your joints. The myth that clay court tennis is bad for your body is due to the strenuous nature of the matches themselves. Nothing to do with how the actual surface interacts with your body.

Mystique
06-12-2012, 08:22 AM
Sampras won 7 Big Ws for a reason. And Nadal will not be able to win 7 Wimbledons for a reason.
The converse is true for the French.

The games and adjustments required for both slams are very different.
This comparison doesnt stand really because for some the French Open is more difficult than Wimbledon because of their natural games, for some the other way around.

sexybeast
06-12-2012, 09:23 AM
I dont think Sampras beating Ivanisevic, Rafter, Agassi and old Becker in Wimbledon is more impressive than Nadal beating Federer, Djokovic, Soderling and Ferrer in RG.

Nadal's is more impressive because of the complete domination on the way to win his titles, 1o sets lost to win 7 RGs?

Sampras lost 3 times as many sets.

Backhand_Maestro
06-12-2012, 09:31 AM
Djoker has huge chance of 7 AOs

shadows
06-12-2012, 09:37 AM
Impossible to compare really.

RG might be more of an endurance effort, but I think it also has a considerably higher margin of error. A good clay courter will always have repeated chances to impose their game on their opponent whereas you're walking a much finer line on grass. I'd probably lean towards grass being harder for that reason.

They are both monstrous achievements.

TBkeeper
06-12-2012, 09:48 AM
Djoker has huge chance of 7 AOs

Djoker has absolutely no chance at 7 AOs are you ...... "smart" ?

iriraz
06-12-2012, 10:26 AM
At the French,if Nadal plays great he knows he is basically impossible to beat.He is winning most of his sets with 6-1 or 6-2 and he might get 1 or 2 tougher matches at the end of tournament but even then he feels he is in control.
With Sampras at Wimbledon,he knew he had to serve well to put himself into position to win.The sets he played were either 1 break/set or a tiebreaker.Also with so many big servers back then,he had to wait for his moment and take the 1 or 2 chances he got to win the sets.

TigerTim
06-12-2012, 10:40 AM
This is a tough one, Rafa has been more dominant and clay harder to dominate but Pistol Pete has more opposition imo. I'd say equal with maybe a slight edge to Rafa.

Burrow
06-12-2012, 10:43 AM
seven Roland Garros's is harder than seven Wimbledon's obviously. clay is more grinding and wearing on the body, so more often than not a a great clay court player will lose their abilities way too early.

with a great SErve and fast grass, ala Sampras, a player could dominate grass without too much trouble, clay on the other hand is so physical.

clay might be the hardest, Roland Garros 7 times is insane. i'm not just saying this because of the current events either but because clay is just so taxing on the body. if Nadal had not started out so well so young it would never be possible but examples like Goran Ivansevic show that even an older player serving out of the lights can win Wimbledon randomly. clay is less random because of how much works it takes to win Roland Garros

Sampras had far more competition to deal with in the 90's, that much is undeniable.

I don't understand what your point is, in which I've bolded. There were many fast court specialists with excellent serves, and according to you, a player can dominate quite easily with a great serve, so who wins?

Surely Sampras had more than just a great serve, if he was up against other players who could reel off service games in less than a minute.

leng jai
06-12-2012, 10:44 AM
Sampras had far more competition to deal with in the 90's, that much is undeniable.

I don't understand what your point is, in which I've bolded. There were many fast court specialists with excellent serves, and according to you, a player can dominate quite easily with a great serve, so who wins?

Bias.

Sophocles
06-12-2012, 10:54 AM
They're equally impressive. Clay is more physically demanding, obviously, but also easier to dominate if you are significantly better than the competition. Nobody has ever dominated Wimbledon the way Borg & Nadal dominated R.G., for the simple reason that GOAT clay talents make it hard for their opponents to win points, let alone games, let alone sets, because on that surface against a supreme defender you have to hit several great shots to win a point. On grass, even against a grass-court GOAT, you can win points with one great shot, holding serve throughout a set and nabbing it in a breaker. The superior player is much more vulnerable to an upset & needs supreme mental strength & clutch play to avoid ever being upset in 7 tournaments.

SheepleBuster
06-12-2012, 11:09 AM
The question was not just about Sampras or Nadal. If Roger wins 7 US opens (I mean he could have), would that be more impressive? Clay is demanding for longer matches but Hard courts is worse on your body. There are many great hard court players these days. But not so many specialists on Grass or Clay, no? I still think winning 7 AO or US opens is more impressive because of the depth of the field.

sexybeast
06-12-2012, 11:21 AM
The question was not just about Sampras or Nadal. If Roger wins 7 US opens (I mean he could have), would that be more impressive? Clay is demanding for longer matches but Hard courts is worse on your body. There are many great hard court players these days. But not so many specialists on Grass or Clay, no? I still think winning 7 AO or US opens is more impressive because of the depth of the field.

7 Usopens would be very, very impressive. This is foremost a great hardcourt era and Federer has always beaten great players in Usopen.

Sadly he didnt win those 3 5-setters against Del Potro/Djokovic. I might be the only person to belive Federer would beat Nadal in Usopen 2011 atleast, it was very unfortunate he couldnt atleast take Usopen 2009 and 2011.

Sophocles
06-12-2012, 11:24 AM
The question was not just about Sampras or Nadal. If Roger wins 7 US opens (I mean he could have), would that be more impressive? Clay is demanding for longer matches but Hard courts is worse on your body. There are many great hard court players these days. But not so many specialists on Grass or Clay, no? I still think winning 7 AO or US opens is more impressive because of the depth of the field.

It would have been astounding, because as you say there is more depth on hard than anywhere else, but also the U.S.O. is in one important sense the hardest slam to win, being the Open-era slam most often won by the world's best player. As SB says, it's a shame Fed lost those close matches in 2009-11, as he would have won at least 1 more title.

Fireballer
06-12-2012, 11:26 AM
The question was not just about Sampras or Nadal. If Roger wins 7 US opens (I mean he could have), would that be more impressive? Clay is demanding for longer matches but Hard courts is worse on your body. There are many great hard court players these days. But not so many specialists on Grass or Clay, no? I still think winning 7 AO or US opens is more impressive because of the depth of the field.

Wimbledon is the most impressive becasue it's grass.It takes more skill to win on grass than clay.Different type of skill mind you but still.

Backhand_Maestro
06-12-2012, 12:14 PM
Djoker has absolutely no chance at 7 AOs are you ...... "smart" ?

Has 3 already . .

SaFed2005
06-12-2012, 12:27 PM
I don't know. Grass when it was fast, someone could serve 3 sets lights out and beat you in tie-breaks, no? Whereas on clay, Rafa is so much better in the clay court game that people do not get lucky. So the chances of Rafa losing even sets before a final are always remote (except last year where the conditions were a bit whacky).

I was actually thinking the same thing. I always felt that it is more likely to have an upset on grass than on clay. Someone who is serving huge on the day (for example Tsonga against Federer last year) can make the upset much easier on grass than on clay. On clay even if you serve your best you will still have to eventually play some rallies. Since it's more physical, a players stamina factors in more. An example would be Isner vs Nadal last year. Isner could only keep up for so long. He eventually went out of gas and Nadal's superior stamina + much better overall game made the big difference. On a fast grasscourt, that match might have gone to Isner in 3 or 4 sets.

Matt01
06-12-2012, 12:40 PM
Both is practically equally impressive although at least physically winning on clay is harder than on grass. For me personally on the current tour, winning 7 Slams on HC > 7 Slams on clay > 7 Slams on grass.


Wimbledon is the most impressive becasue it's grass.It takes more skill to win on grass than clay.Different type of skill mind you but still.


Such BS. :lol: On grass you need a serve and not much more. On clay you at least need to have some decent groundstrokes.

Nole fan
06-12-2012, 12:56 PM
I'd say 7 USOs are more difficult because there are more players who can compete for them. RG with Nadal's dominance not so much.

freedomfry
06-12-2012, 01:01 PM
I love how 90% of all threads could just be merged into a big "who do you like better" thread. Nothing against the OP, as the question is a credible one. However it just doesn't work on this board.

Fireballer
06-12-2012, 01:02 PM
Such BS. :lol: On grass you need a serve and not much more. On clay you at least need to have some decent groundstrokes.

Tell that to Novak Djokovic

Commander Data
06-12-2012, 01:04 PM
We all know that Nadal and Sampras have won 7 slams in the same tournament. I personally think winning 7 times on a surface such as the U.S. Open or AO is more challenging. What's your take? Who are you impressed with the most? Sampras or Nadal? Winning which slam 7 times is the hardest in your opinion?

Nadals achievement is more impressive to me then Sampras. a good serve could carry you thru wimbledon in the 1990's. RG is physically harder to win.
7 US Open I would probably rank above 7 RG because the competition is stronger on HC and it is tough to win on the slower conditions that prevail while Fed took his titles.

Nadals achievment would still be more impressive though because he won in a very dominant matter

Manequin75
06-12-2012, 01:08 PM
I think Roger was very insightful when he spoke about RG Vs Wimbledon. On clay you have greater margins and you could advance to the later rounds. In the final rounds it becomes tough to win it. On grass, margins are less and you can be upset earlier. But if you navigate them then final rounds are easier. I understand he is basically talking about himself. As there are players like Roddick who cant even get past RG round 1 but can go all the way to the wimbledon finals.

So which one is easier depends on skills and playing style of each player. But generally RG is regarded as the most grueling to the body. But they are both slams - 2000 points each and in the total slam count they carry the same weight. So 7 wins should be comparable across all slams. As it is too damn tough. :)

Chirag
06-12-2012, 01:22 PM
RG is the toughest slam to win physically :shrug: To win 7 in inhuman :worship:

RagingLamb
06-12-2012, 01:43 PM
Ask Nadal which is tougher

ossie
06-12-2012, 01:44 PM
i also believe that clay is more taxing on the body but i don't think this proves winning 7 french opens is more difficult than winning 7 wimbledons. yes you can serve your way to a wimbledon crown as many have done it before but it is precisely because of this that makes it more unlikely to win 7 in a row. any player in the draw could have his day and serve the lights out and manage to beat a favourite. (tsonga beating fed comes to mind). it is more random which makes it more difficult imo.

Roger the Dodger
06-12-2012, 01:49 PM
Its amazing Borg won 5 and 6 of each type given the surfaces were drastically different during his era. Also, with a wooden racket. So strange that with the exception of people with a critical view of the matter, most will now always remember Nadal as the arbitrary CLAYGOAT. :sad:

Priam
06-12-2012, 02:07 PM
7 OZ opens would be pretty daunting nowadays too.

Nole fan
06-12-2012, 02:31 PM
Still what Rafa did is an amazing achievement and I think he is the undisputed Clay Goat. Kudos to him. It was touchy to see him suffer so much and cry in the final ceremony, Ive never seen Rafa like this since Wimbledon 08.

Foxy
06-12-2012, 02:45 PM
7 OZ opens would be pretty daunting nowadays too.

7 Olympics will be a kick ass achievement!

SheepleBuster
06-12-2012, 03:10 PM
Nadals achievement is more impressive to me then Sampras. a good serve could carry you thru wimbledon in the 1990's. RG is physically harder to win.
7 US Open I would probably rank above 7 RG because the competition is stronger on HC and it is tough to win on the slower conditions that prevail while Fed took his titles.

Nadals achievment would still be more impressive though because he won in a very dominant matter

How would you compare 7 AOs vs. 7 US Opens though? :) That's the main question. I guess if you were to order it, what it would be. For me, it would be

7 US Opens > 7 Wimbledons or 7 Clays but I don't know where AO fits because it is slow.

RagingLamb
06-12-2012, 03:31 PM
Wimbledon and Rolland Garros are different beasts, and in a sport where most can only dream of winning even one slam, winning something 7 times is a monumental achievement, almost unfathomable.

Which one's tougher? No idea.

But for those who say a "good serve" can carry you to the Wimbledon final, don't forget that there were plenty of people with "good serves" back in the Sampras (and Federer) era who never reached the final. Grass court tennis cannot be that simple. Nor did Nadal merely win by having better endurance than his opponents. That's also too simplistic.

Backhand_Maestro
06-12-2012, 03:43 PM
7 Olympics will be a kick ass achievement!

:d

thrust
06-12-2012, 04:03 PM
You can't compare :rolleyes:

True! 7 Slams on any surface is a great achievement. Sampras-Grass, Nadal-Clay are equally great achievements, IMO. Sampras also has 7 HC slams, which means he was equally great on two surfaces. Nadal is the Clay King, for sure, but not as great on HC or Grass. Pete's great weakness, of course, is clay. I would be thrilled with either player's accomplishments-LOL!!

LeChuck
06-12-2012, 04:07 PM
Both incredible achievements. However there was far more depth in the first week of the natural surface slams in the 90s than there is currently (just the natural surface slams though and not the two hard court ones).

People make the mistake of just focusing on Federer, Nadal, Sampras Becker etc, but it's the whole field you need to look at.

In the 90s there were tons of dangerous clay and grass court specialists who could do some damage and scare the big guns at the first week of RG and Wimbledon. Nowadays the top players can reach the latter stages of RG and Wimbledon relatively untested, or less so than 90s standards.

Nowadays most of the players on the circuit are hard courters.

Even the likes of Laver, Borg and Lendl in previous eras had many 5 set matches and major scares in the early rounds of grand slams.

I think many people don't realise how big the change from 16 seeds to 32 seeds at the slams was. The top players were given an extra layer of protection. In 1992 Courier and Muster squared off in the 2nd round at RG (Courier was the defending RG and Rome champion while Muster was the reigning Monte-Carlo champion). Because of the 32 seed system you could never get a match-up like that so early on in a slam nowadays.

Mountaindewslave
06-12-2012, 04:11 PM
Arguments for both. Clay is a tough surface to dominate but the depth of the competition is poor now. Grass is easy on the body and a GOAT serve got you 80% there in the old days.

To sum up:

7 at RG if you're a Rafito tard.
7 at Wimbledon if you're a Sampras tard.

ehhhh regardless of a persons likes or dislikes of a player, Roland Garros is harder to win 7 times because you would have to be in peak physical condition all those years. Wimbledon you would not necessarily have to be in your best shape.

the physicality does make one harder to keep winning than the other

Shinoj
06-12-2012, 04:14 PM
There was lack of competition to be honest.

Federer folder like a Pigeon to Nadal on Clay. And its only recently Djokovic has emerged. The lack of fight given to Nadal is just pathetic.Only a few times somebody really stood upto him.

Like a Robin Soderling. A True Warrior.

Quadruple Tree
06-12-2012, 04:16 PM
In the 90's there were only 16 seeds for Slams, too. Today there are 32, so you could get some crazy match-ups in earlier rounds between the top guys and up and coming players who hadn't quite cracked the top 20 yet like Sampras-Philippousis in the second round of Wimbledon in 1996.

Leiningen
06-12-2012, 04:59 PM
Sampras at Wimbledon and Nadal at Roland Garros are equally impressive, but has anyone ever written seven non-retarded MTF-posts in a row?

peribsen
06-12-2012, 05:13 PM
Both incredible achievements. However there was far more depth in the first week of the natural surface slams in the 90s than there is currently (just the natural surface slams though and not the two hard court ones).

People make the mistake of just focusing on Federer, Nadal, Sampras Becker etc, but it's the whole field you need to look at.

In the 90s there were tons of dangerous clay and grass court specialists who could do some damage and scare the big guns at the first week of RG and Wimbledon. Nowadays the top players can reach the latter stages of RG and Wimbledon relatively untested, or less so than 90s standards.

Nowadays most of the players on the circuit are hard courters.

Even the likes of Laver, Borg and Lendl in previous eras had many 5 set matches and major scares in the early rounds of grand slams.

I think many people don't realise how big the change from 16 seeds to 32 seeds at the slams was. The top players were given an extra layer of protection. In 1992 Courier and Muster squared off in the 2nd round at RG (Courier was the defending RG and Rome champion while Muster was the reigning Monte-Carlo champion). Because of the 32 seed system you could never get a match-up like that so early on in a slam nowadays.

+100.

As for the bolded sentence, people here will cry rivers about the effect new technology and slower courts are having on the game, but seldom do you see anyone mention the harm that HC has done to the sport. Not by itself, a 3rd surface was wellcome. But by the sheer predominance it has established over the original surfaces. Grass has almost dissappeared (would have, but for Wimby), and some would even cut back clay!!

No use complaining about the growing homogeneity of players, if nothing is done to roll back HC and restore the equilibrium between surfaces.

yesh222
06-12-2012, 05:45 PM
Both are ridiculously impressive, though Nadal's is probably more impressive because he's done it in fewer attempts. The same would be true if Nadal had won 7 Wimbledons and Sampras seven FOs.

Roger the Dodger
06-12-2012, 05:52 PM
Sampras at Wimbledon and Nadal at Roland Garros are equally impressive, but has anyone ever written seven non-retarded MTF-posts in a row?

:haha:

Manequin75
06-12-2012, 05:56 PM
Still what Rafa did is an amazing achievement and I think he is the undisputed Clay Goat. Kudos to him. It was touchy to see him suffer so much and cry in the final ceremony, Ive never seen Rafa like this since Wimbledon 08.

Novak did it to him beating him in 3 slams. He was shocked as things were going well for him in 2010 and then Novak 2.0 appeared. All that pent up emotions came out. Not very different from roger in AO 2009 when he kept losing to Rafa slam after slam. Unfortunate for Roger it came out in a loss at the ceremony. For Rafa, it came out in a win (atlast!). But make no mistake this was 2011 anguish caused by Novak being released.

Nole fan
06-12-2012, 06:27 PM
Novak did it to him beating him in 3 slams. He was shocked as things were going well for him in 2010 and then Novak 2.0 appeared. All that pent up emotions came out. Not very different from roger in AO 2009 when he kept losing to Rafa slam after slam. Unfortunate for Roger it came out in a loss at the ceremony. For Rafa, it came out in a win (atlast!). But make no mistake this was 2011 anguish caused by Novak being released.

Yeah for sure. In my opinion Fed's tears have been mocked when it was an honest release of emotion that I've hardly ever seen in him. It just made me respect him more and be more sympathetic towards him. The less perfect he is the most endearing and human to me. I never will make fun of Roger because of his tears. :shrug:

rafa_maniac
06-12-2012, 07:05 PM
Nadal's is more impressive statistically in that he's won them more convincingly and in far less attempts. As for which is "harder"? Well, for Sampras he would say 7 RGs, and Nadal would say 7 WBs :lol: I'm not quite sure I follow some of the reasoning in this thread though. It seems like people are saying Wimbledon might be harder because you need to be a lot luckier as you are more likely to be upset on any random day, whereas on clay you need to be a lot better than all your opponents... Wouldn't that make it harder to succeed on clay as you need a larger margin of ability between yourself and the rest of the field, and to keep that margin for many years on a surface not reknowned for longevity?