Who are the Clay court specialists? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who are the Clay court specialists?

Nikfonso
04-03-2013, 10:03 AM
So as we're approaching the Clay court season, who in your opinion are more suited to clay than any other surface.

I'll start with 2 obvious choices:

Nadal and Ferrer.

Who else?


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

come2papa
04-03-2013, 10:09 AM
Most, if not all spanish and south american players...

Nixer
04-03-2013, 10:10 AM
Monaco, Berlocq, Fognini, Almagro, Klizan, Bellucci, Gimeno-Traver, Hanescu, Leo Mayer, Robredo, Kuznetsov, Kavcic, Montanes, Sousa, Rufin, Alund, Hajek - of the top100.

Litotes
04-03-2013, 10:10 AM
I don't think Ferrer is all that obvious as a clay specialist. It seems to me his results on HC are about on par with his clay ones.

Nixer
04-03-2013, 10:11 AM
I don't think Ferrer is all that obvious as a clay specialist. It seems to me his results on HC are about on par with his clay ones.

Yet, only on clay can he consistently challenge the big 4.

BackhandDTL
04-03-2013, 10:14 AM
Berdych and Del Potro are arguably two of the best clay courters in the game. Better than Ferrer on the surface, I think.

Monfils is another guy who, when healthy, makes strong showings on the surface. Wawrinka is another one who's up there.

The less relevant group, though specialists nonetheless, includes many South American and Spanish players, as mentioned, such as Andujar, Monaco, Montanes, etc.

BackhandDTL
04-03-2013, 10:16 AM
I don't think Ferrer is all that obvious as a clay specialist. It seems to me his results on HC are about on par with his clay ones.

I agree with this. In fact, until recently, his best efforts on hard courts outshined those on clay. In the 00's, he made just two RG QF's, most often bowing out by the third round. It wouldn't surprise me if he were upset early at RG this year.

Litotes
04-03-2013, 10:17 AM
Yet, only on clay can he consistently challenge the big 4.

You play the field, not just the big 4. Besides, his results are better against Murray mainly because Murray has clay as his worst surface. His results are not better against Federer, 0% everywhere, and scarcely against Nadal...he's got 3-1 against Djokovic on clay, but no victory since 2009.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 10:20 AM
Almagro.

Poor on HC, make his seasons and titles on clay. 12 titles in his career, all on clay, he has also never made a non clay tournament final.

Intheshadows
04-03-2013, 11:28 AM
Almagro.

Poor on HC, make his seasons and titles on clay. 12 titles in his career, all on clay, he has also never made a non clay tournament final.

That record surprises me a bit as Almagro is always solid at the Australian Open.

If you look through his schedule over the last few years he really only plays the hard court grand slams and masters. The only weaker tournament he has consistently played is Auckland and that is the first tournament of the year.

So sure he is a better player on clay than hard, but he is no hard court mug, if he was playing those soft US 250s instead of vulturing the south american clay swing he would be winning hard court tournies no problem.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 11:34 AM
That record surprises me a bit as Almagro is always solid at the Australian Open.

If you look through his schedule over the last few years he really only plays the hard court grand slams and masters. The only weaker tournament he has consistently played is Auckland and that is the first tournament of the year.

So sure he is a better player on clay than hard, but he is no hard court mug, if he was playing those soft US 250s instead of vulturing the south american clay swing he would be winning hard court tournies no problem.

I don't think he would. There is a good reason he plays the events on clay. And is seeded due to that, which allow him to progress in some of the HC tournament he plays.

According to the ATP website stats, he has a losing record on all surfaces, excepted clay. The definition of a clay specialist. He was also unlucky to see his 3 1/4 run in Roland Garros being stopped by Nadal. If he was on the other side of the draw, he could have done better.

August
04-03-2013, 11:36 AM
Ferrer is as much a clay specialist as Murray a grass specialist. Medium to slow HC is probably both players' best surface, yet most of the tour being clay/grass mugs, there are less players who can beat them on clay/grass.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 11:39 AM
Ferrer is as much a clay specialist as Murray a grass specialist. Medium to slow HC is probably both players' best surface, yet most of the tour being clay/grass mugs, there are less players who can beat them on clay/grass.

Ferrer isn't a specialist but he isn't better on harcourt than he is on clay. He lacks a big weapon on clay, but his durability, his regularity are great assets on that surface.

Newcomer
04-03-2013, 11:40 AM
Wayne Odesnik

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 11:41 AM
Berdych and Del Potro are arguably two of the best clay courters in the game. Better than Ferrer on the surface, I think.

Monfils is another guy who, when healthy, makes strong showings on the surface. Wawrinka is another one who's up there.

The less relevant group, though specialists nonetheless, includes many South American and Spanish players, as mentioned, such as Andujar, Monaco, Montanes, etc.

In other news, Roger Federer is a good tennis player.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 11:42 AM
Berdych and Del Potro better than Ferrer on clay?

Is that a joke?

leng jai
04-03-2013, 11:44 AM
Berdych and Del Potro better than Ferrer on clay?

Is that a joke?

They're more dangerous but not necessarily better. In other words the same sort of comparison on hard court.

madmax
04-03-2013, 11:45 AM
I'd say Pics is more of a slow court specialist in general with his demanding grinding style. And yes, theoretically he should fare better on slow hardcourts than on clay due to his inability to generate a lot of pace. Same as Murray really

Abel
04-03-2013, 11:46 AM
I don't think he would. There is a good reason he plays the events on clay. And is seeded due to that, which allow him to progress in some of the HC tournament he plays.

According to the ATP website stats, he has a losing record on all surfaces, excepted clay. The definition of a clay specialist. He was also unlucky to see his 3 1/4 run in Roland Garros being stopped by Nadal. If he was on the other side of the draw, he could have done better.

The fact remains he can still compete with almost anyone on a HC when not in mental midget mode :shrug:

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 11:46 AM
I'd say Pics is more of a slow court specialist in general with his demanding grinding style. And yes, theoretically he should fare better on slow hardcourts than on clay due to his inability to generate a lot of pace. Same as Murray really

Murray isn't a slow court player. Ferrer is better than Murray on clay despite having less weapons.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 11:49 AM
Berdych and Del Potro better than Ferrer on clay?

Is that a joke?

Nope, it's undeniable fact.

Ferrer reaching his first RG SF at 30yo with one of the weakest draws conceivable and suddenly being hyped as some sort of great player on clay is the only joke here.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 11:49 AM
They're more dangerous but not necessarily better. In other words the same sort of comparison on hard court.

It depends for who. If it against Federer, yes, if it is against anyone else, no.

Ferrer has better clay seasons than both of them, more titles, and would beat them more times than the contrary in H2H matchs.

Abel
04-03-2013, 11:50 AM
Ferrer is better than Murray on clay despite having less weapons.

And why do you think that is? Do you think that will still be the case this season now Murray's FH is improved?

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 11:52 AM
Nope, it's undeniable fact.

Ferrer reaching his first RG SF at 30yo with one of the weakest draws conceivable and suddenly being hyped as some sort of great player on clay is the only joke here.

Ferrer would have reached the SF in 2005 if he did not run into Nadal. Remmeber how far did Del Potro go when he run into Nadal at RG?

I admit that Ferrer has had a RG problem, where all the good play he had done during the clay season did not materialize in RG. But for the surface in general, he is much better than Berdych and Del Potro. And I am sure you did not forget that decisive Davis Cup match on clay.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 11:54 AM
And why do you think that is? Do you think that will still be the case this season now Murray's FH is improved?

I think it is still the case, yes. Murray doesn't dictate and construct points, Ferrer does. Murray either attack or either defend. He doesnt build the point like claycourters do. Murray's forehand attack are good, his rally forehands aren't.

Nixer
04-03-2013, 11:56 AM
Why the hell is everyone comparing different players? The idea of a court specialist is to compare his results on one surface with his results on all other surfaces - it's just 1 player.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 11:56 AM
Ferrer would have reached the SF in 2005 if he did not run into Nadal. Remmeber how far did Del Potro go when he run into Nadal at RG?

I admit that Ferrer has had a RG problem, where all the good play he had done during the clay season did not materialize in RG. But for the surface in general, he is much better than Berdych and Del Potro. And I am sure you did not forget that decisive Davis Cup match on clay.

What? If he was in Federer's quarter instead of Nadal, he'd have lost. Hardly likely he'd beat Puerta or Davydenko either. Del Potro only played Nadal at RG once when he was 18yo, still put up a much better fight than Ferrer, not that that is saying much.

You have to be kidding, Del Potro was a few points away from being a Roland Garros champion; well not really, but he'd have been the clear favorite for the final against Soderling had he managed to put away Federer. He's far more threatening to all of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic than Ferrer. Berdych, I concede, is almost as non-threatening to Djokovic and Nadal as Ferrer on clay, but infinitely more threatening to Federer.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 12:00 PM
What? If he was in Federer's quarter instead of Nadal, he'd have lost. Hardly likely he'd beat Puerta or Davydenko either. Del Potro only played Nadal at RG once when he was 18yo, still put up a much better fight than Ferrer.

You have to be kidding, Del Potro was a few points away from being a Roland Garros champion; well not really, but he'd have the clear favorite for the final against Soderling had he managed to put away Federer. He's far more threatening to all of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic than Ferrer. Berdych, I concede, is as non-threatening to Djokovic and Nadal as Ferrer on clay, but infinitely more threatening to Federer.

Del Potro and Berdych are definitely more threatening to Federer than Ferrer is, but that's all. On clay Ferrer remains a bigger threat than both of them to Djokovic. None of the three are a credible threat to Nadal on clay.

Bottom line is that Ferrer is doing much better clay seasons and is beating Berdych and Del Potro on clay more often than not. And that's how you judge who is better than who, analysing the wholes results and looking at the H2H.

Who is better on clay doesn't equal to who is more a threat to Federer on clay.

Newcomer
04-03-2013, 12:01 PM
Ferrer would have reached the SF in 2005 if he did not run into Nadal. Remmeber how far did Del Potro go when he run into Nadal at RG?

I admit that Ferrer has had a RG problem, where all the good play he had done during the clay season did not materialize in RG. But for the surface in general, he is much better than Berdych and Del Potro. And I am sure you did not forget that decisive Davis Cup match on clay.

Berdych and Del Potro pushing Nadal, Federer, Djokovic to the limits on clay. Nadal agaisnt Berdych had played his best clay match for many years last year at Rome. On other hand Ferrer took 5 games at RG s\f. Feel the difference.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 12:03 PM
Del Potro and Berdych are definitely more threatening to Federer than Ferrer is, but that's all. On clay Ferrer remains a bigger threat than both of them to Djokovic. None of the three being a credible threat to Nadal on clay.

Bottom line is that Ferrer is doing much better clay seasons and is beating Berdych and Del Potro on clay more often than not. And that's how you judge who is better than who, analysing the wholes results and looking at the H2H.

Who is better on clay doesn't equal to who is more a threat to Federer on clay.

Wait, you think Ferrer is a bigger threat to Djokovic on any surface than Del Potro :lol:? I'm sure Djokovic and his fans are praying he draws Delpo instead of Ferrer :scared:

As for Nadal, just youtube 'Davis Cup Final 2011 Nadal vs Del Potro' and then compare what you see to Ferrer's constant bendovers.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 12:04 PM
Berdych and Del Potro pushing Nadal, Federer, Djokovic to the limits on clay. Nadal agaisnt Berdych had played his best clay match for many years last year at Rome. On other hand Ferrer took 5 games at RG s\f. Feel the difference.

Nadal-Berdych Roma 6-4 7-5

Nadal-Ferrer Barcelona 7-6 7-5

The Ferrer match wasn't easier than the Berdych match.

ProdigyEng
04-03-2013, 12:04 PM
Andy Clayray OBE

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 12:04 PM
Wait, you think Ferrer is a bigger threat to Djokovic on any surface than Del Potro :lol:? As for Nadal, just youtube 'Davis Cup Final 2011 Nadal vs Del Potro' and then compare what you see to Ferrer's constant bendovers.

You should youtube that Ferrer-Del Potro Davis Cup 2011 match.

You have no point literally. Ferrer is by all measuring mean a better clay player than Berdych and Del Potro.

Newcomer
04-03-2013, 12:07 PM
Nadal-Berdych Roma 6-4 7-5

Nadal-Ferrer Barcelona 7-6 7-5

The Ferrer match wasn't easier than the Berdych match.

at MM's events even Montanes can beat Federer. But to be honest, Ferrer was really good at that match. But MS>>>500 .

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 12:08 PM
You should youtube that Ferrer-Del Potro Davis Cup 2011 match.

How long was that match again, 4h30 iirc? Even after that, he was able to push Nadal to the limits on clay even breadsticking him, you can't be serious about him not being a more credible threat than Ferrer.

Even Tsonga is a more credible threat to Federer/Nadal/Djokovic on clay than Ferrer, he got closer to beating Djokovic at RG last year than Ferrer ever will and he has the big game to threaten them even on clay if he redlines his game.

Berdych and Del Potro are not only more credible threats, but better players overall on the surface as well.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 12:10 PM
How long was that match again, 4h30 iirc? Even after that, he was able to push Nadal to the limits on clay even breadsticking him, you can't be serious about him not being a more credible threat than Ferrer.

Even Tsonga is a more credible threat to Federer/Nadal/Djokovic on clay than Ferrer, he got closer to beating Djokovic at RG last year than Ferrer ever will and he has the big game to threaten them even on clay if he redlines his game.

You are reaching now.

Tsonga a better player on clay than Ferrer? Are you trolling me? Tsonga is an absolute joke on clay. I feel that Del Potro is overall a better player than Ferrer, but on clay, there is no question that Ferrer is the better player.

arm
04-03-2013, 12:10 PM
Wait, you think Ferrer is a bigger threat to Djokovic on any surface than Del Potro :lol:? I'm sure Djokovic and his fans are praying he draws Delpo instead of Ferrer :scared:

As for Nadal, just youtube 'Davis Cup Final 2011 Nadal vs Del Potro' and then compare what you see to Ferrer's constant bendovers.

It's not an obvious choice as you seem to claim to be honest. It would depend on the surface and other factors.

Federer in 2
04-03-2013, 12:12 PM
Ferrer is an indoor hard specialist.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 12:16 PM
You are reaching now.

Tsonga a better player on clay than Ferrer? Are you trolling me? Tsonga is an absolute joke on clay. I feel that Del Potro is overall a better player than Ferrer, but on clay, there is no question that Ferrer is the better player.

Tsonga is not a better player on clay than Ferrer, but he's a more credible threat to the elite players on the surface, yes. I trust you watched his match with Djokovic at FO last year.

It's not an obvious choice as you seem to claim to be honest. It would depend on the surface and other factors.

There's no set of conditions or surface where Ferrer would be more likely to beat Djokovic than Del Potro. Except maybe if Del Potro had an injury that hindered his forehand (any other injury, he's still more likely to beat Djokovic than even fully fit Ferrer), in which case they'd be equally unlikely to beat him.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 12:18 PM
Tsonga is not a better player on clay than Ferrer, but he's a more credible threat to the elite players on the surface, yes.


1) Your argument for Del Potro is the same than for Tsonga, therefore you admit that Del Potro isn't a a better player than Ferrer on clay

2) Tsonga is a clown on clay and absolutely no a threat. Djokovic was playing garbage and should have lost to Seppi, who was as close to win as Tsonga was. Ferrer would have beaten Djokovic.

tribalfusion
04-03-2013, 12:18 PM
You are reaching now.

Tsonga a better player on clay than Ferrer? Are you trolling me? Tsonga is an absolute joke on clay. I feel that Del Potro is overall a better player than Ferrer, but on clay, there is no question that Ferrer is the better player.

The guy is clueless and/or is trolling. He cherry picks a match here or there or a match-up here or there and works backwards from his desired result (i.e. Ferrer sucks) to premises which make no sense.

Ferrer could beat Del Potro and Berdych 10 times in a row and it would still not penetrate this guy's head. I am not even a fan of Ferrer and still I have grown increasingly tired of this silliness. Only a fool or someone seeking attention could see Ferrer AGAINST THE ENTIRE FIELD including the other top guys (minus only Federer and Nadal) as anything less than one of the best players on clay throughout the whole clay season which is by the way more than just RG.

Responding to the original question I think Montanes is an excellent example of someone who really is a clay court specialist and of course many other Spaniards and South Americans are as well (Italians too to some extent).

tribalfusion
04-03-2013, 12:21 PM
There's no set of conditions or surface where Ferrer would be more likely to beat Djokovic than Del Potro.

You really are out of control. Let's see: the last time Djokovic and Ferrer played it was a close 3 setter for Djokovic (in his career best season) and the 3 times before that Djokovic LOST.

Only one other player has a better record against Novak on clay and that isn't Del Potro by the way.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 12:21 PM
1) Your argument for Del Potro is the same than for Tsonga, therefore you admit that Del Potro isn't a a better player than Ferrer on clay

2) Tsonga is a clown on clay and absolutely no a threat. Djokovic was playing garbage and should have lost to Seppi, who was as close to win as Tsonga was. Ferrer would have beaten Djokovic.

1) No. Del Potro is a better player on clay in general, Tsonga is simply the bigger threat.

2) Did you watch that match? It was arguably the best Slam match of the year, Ferrer wouldn't even have taken a set because unlike Tsonga he doesn't have the firepower to trouble Djokovic at all. And by the way, Seppi wasn't close to beating Nole at all, he won 2 sets but was never close to winning a third, Tsonga actually had multiple match points.

You really are out of control. Let's see: the last time Djokovic and Ferrer played it was a close 3 setter for Djokovic (in his career best season) and the 3 times before that Djokovic LOST.

Only one other player has a better record against Novak on clay and that isn't Del Potro by the way.

Ever since Djokovic became the dominant player in tennis, Ferrer has become like an annoying mosquito that he swats aside with ease. The only exception to this is WTF 2011, where Djokovic was burnt out after one of the best seasons in the Open Era and countless wars of attrition against Nadal.

arm
04-03-2013, 12:23 PM
Tsonga is not a better player on clay than Ferrer, but he's a more credible threat to the elite players on the surface, yes. I trust you watched his match with Djokovic at FO last year.



There's no set of conditions or surface where Ferrer would be more likely to beat Djokovic than Del Potro. Except maybe if Del Potro had an injury that hindered his forehand (any other injury, he's still more likely to beat Djokovic than even fully fit Ferrer), in which case they'd be equally unlikely to beat him.

And in what are you basing this assumption?

I would choose Delpo any day for a clay match. Except if it was RG final.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 12:24 PM
You really are out of control. Let's see: the last time Djokovic and Ferrer played it was a close 3 setter for Djokovic (in his career best season) and the 3 times before that Djokovic LOST.

Only one other player has a better record against Novak on clay and that isn't Del Potro by the way.

This.

Last time they played on clay, Djokovic barely escaped in three and then beat Nadal in two. Ferrer is a hard match up for Djokovic on clay. On Hardcourt, he is a cakewalk though.

Mark Lenders, I know you are a big Del Potro fan and that you dislike Ferrer, but Ferrer is, without any debate,better than Del Potro on clay. By titles won, by H2H, by SF and F reached and overall results.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 12:30 PM
And in what are you basing this assumption?

I would choose Delpo any day for a clay match. Except if it was RG final.

On Del Potro being the better player and having a much more suitable game to upset Nole and the belief - odds are even if Ferrer got close to pulling the upset, he'd end up choking it. No reason he'd get close anyway as Nole isn't troubled by him in the slighest ever since he became the dominant player back in 2011.

Remember their 2011 match at RG months mere months after JMDP returned to the tour, Delpo was more than matching Nole before the match was interrupted due to lack of natural light; I'm pretty sure Novak will have his hands full if he faces JMDP at RG, especially as he can't defend against his power shots as effectively as on a hardcourt.

This.

Last time they played on clay, Djokovic barely escaped in three and then beat Nadal in two. Ferrer is a hard match up for Djokovic on clay. On Hardcourt, he is a cakewalk though.

Mark Lenders, I know you are a big Del Potro fan and that you dislike Ferrer, but Ferrer is, without any debate,better than Del Potro on clay. By titles won, by H2H, by SF and F reached and overall results.

After 'barely escaping' Ferrer, Djokovic had an even closer call against Bellucci, I suppose Thomaz is also a bigger threat for Djokovic than Del Potro, eh?

tribalfusion
04-03-2013, 12:30 PM
1)


Ever since Djokovic became the dominant player in tennis, Ferrer has become like an annoying mosquito that he swats aside with ease. The only exception to this is WTF 2011, where Djokovic was burnt out after one of the best seasons in the Open Era and countless wars of attrition against Nadal.

You either don't read or simply ignore facts which don't comport with your argument such as it is.

Fact: Ferrer played Djokovic very tough in Djokovic's best season and Djokovic did not "swat him away like an annoying mosquito;" he won in 3 sets and worked hard to do it. Anything less than that level and Ferrer won in the past. We will see what happens this season perhaps.

Fact: Ferrer has played the ENTIRE FIELD better than Del Potro has on clay. You might as well say Gulbis is a better clay courter than Djokovic based on a short time frame where he played Federer and Nadal well on it but there is more to tennis than a handful of matches where you play lights out and/or the other guy is not playing his best.

And last but not least: you have a pathological hatred of Ferrer which prevents you from analyzing this with anything like objectivity.

arm
04-03-2013, 12:36 PM
On Del Potro being the better player and having a much more suitable game to upset Nole and the belief - odds are even if Ferrer got close to pulling the upset, he'd end up choking it. No reason he'd get close anyway as Nole isn't troubled by him in the slighest ever since he became the dominant player back in 2011.

Remember their 2011 match at RG months mere months after JMDP returned to the tour, Delpo was more than matching Nole before the match was interrupted due to lack of natural light; I'm pretty sure Novak will have his hands full if he faces JMDP at RG, especially as he can't defend against his power shots as effectively as on a hardcourt.

You mean for a set? :confused:

I am not going to try to explain why and how you're wrong by claiming that Delpo is generally a bigger threat on clay than Ferrer beause others here are trying to show you the light. ;)

You know very well that I dislike Ferrer and I would much rather watch Delpo play than him, but one needs to be rational and fair. In this case you are not. :p

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 12:37 PM
After 'barely escaping' Ferrer, Djokovic had an even closer call against Bellucci, I suppose Thomaz is also a bigger threat for Djokovic than Del Potro, eh?

Belluci was playing extremely well at that tournament if you recall the things exactly how they happened.

Last season, Del Potro lost to Berdych, Tsonga and Federer in its three clay tournaments. Unimpressive.

What is Del Potro best win on that surface? An Estoril final against Gasquet?

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 12:37 PM
You either don't read or simply ignore facts which don't comport with your argument such as it is.

Fact: Ferrer played Djokovic very tough in Djokovic's best season and Djokovic did not "swat him away like an annoying mosquito;" he won in 3 sets and worked hard to do it. Anything less than that level and Ferrer won in the past. We will see what happens this season perhaps.

Fact: Ferrer has played the ENTIRE FIELD better than Del Potro has on clay. You might as well say Gulbis is a better clay courter than Djokovic based on a short time frame where he played Federer and Nadal well on it but there is more to tennis than a handful of matches where you play lights out and/or the other guy is not playing his best.

And last but not least: you have a pathological hatred of Ferrer which prevents you from analyzing this with anything like objectivity.

Those are not facts at all. Djokovic struggled even more vs Bellucci in the following round - he was actually close to losing unlike vs Ferrer where he was never in a losing position - doesn't mean Bellucci is a bigger threat to him.

Who exactly has Ferrer managed to beat on clay lately than Del Potro hasn't? He reached semis last year because he was lucky enough to avoid Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, that's all.

You mean for a set? :confused:

I am not going to try to explain why and how you're wrong by claiming that Delpo is generally a bigger threat on clay than Ferrer beause others here are trying to show you the light. ;)

You know very well that I dislike Ferrer and I would much rather watch Delpo play than him, but one needs to be rational and fair. In this case you are not. :p

I'm talking about right now. Djokovic will be in much bigger danger of losing at RG if his opponent is Del Potro than if it is Ferrer, an evident truth that I'm sure betting odds will reflect.

arm
04-03-2013, 12:39 PM
Oh and as for Belluci, I remember that one very well, Belluci played out of his mind, unbelievable effort.

TigerTim
04-03-2013, 12:42 PM
ferrer is not, I repeat not, a clay specialist, not even close

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 12:43 PM
ferrer is not, I repeat not, a clay specialist, not even close

He isn't a clay specialist, but his best surface is clay and he is the 4th player in the world on that surface in term of general level of play (and not rankings points).

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 12:44 PM
Belluci was playing extremely well at that tournament if you recall the things exactly how they happened.

Last season, Del Potro lost to Berdych, Tsonga and Federer in its three clay tournaments. Unimpressive.

What is Del Potro best win on that surface? An Estoril final against Gasquet?

I do recall it and I like Bellucci, but pushing Djokovic there does not mean he's a big threat to him at Roland Garros. Much like Ferrer, he's a mental midget who is very unlikely to be able to close things out vs someone like Djokovic at a Slam even if he gets into a winning position. This would be reason alone for Del Potro to be a bigger threat (as if the differences in their games weren't enough) than Ferrer, he's actually mentally strong enough to close things out.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 12:46 PM
I do recall it and I like Bellucci, but pushing Djokovic there does not mean he's a big threat to him at Roland Garros. Much like Ferrer, he's a mental midget who is very unlikely to be able to close things out vs someone like Djokovic at a Slam even if he gets into a winning position. This would be reason alone for Del Potro to be a bigger threat (as if the differences in their games weren't enough) than Ferrer, he's actually mentally strong enough to close things out.

Bigger threat, to Federer yes, to Djokovic maybe (I disagree) but overall, that's not how you say that one player is better than another on a surface.

arm
04-03-2013, 12:47 PM
He isn't a clay specialist, but his best surface is clay and he is the 4th player in the world on that surface in term of general level of play (and not rankings points).

This is where you lose a bit of credibility. Better in general level of play and not ranking points? What is that? Not sure that makes much sense, and you would have trouble finding arguments to support that.

The Prince
04-03-2013, 12:48 PM
All the surfaces these days are just different shades of clay, so in a way, everyone is a clay-court specialist.

se7en
04-03-2013, 12:48 PM
I don't about you guys, but I know of someone whose majority of wins are on dirt.

And his fans are making a case of him as the GOAT :lol:

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 12:50 PM
This is where you lose a bit of credibility. Better in general level of play and not ranking points? What is that? Not sure that makes much sense, and you would have trouble finding arguments to support that.

I think that Ferrer is the fourth best player due to his clay abilities. I don't think he is the fourth best player on HC. But that's another debate.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 12:51 PM
This is where you lose a bit of credibility. Better in general level of play and not ranking points? What is that? Not sure that makes much sense, and you would have trouble finding arguments to support that.

Better level of play is vastly different from ranking points. As a Djokovic fan, you should know this better than most as he kept a top 4 ranking for like a year without beating any top 10 player for 10 months in 2010, ahead of players who were getting much bigger wins simply because his seeding allowed him to - he could afford to play at #8-10 level and still be top 4. The seeding system in tennis is ridiculously protective of top players, more so than in any other sport, and does generate a lot of situations where level of play is not reflected in the rankings.

I'll actually probably start a thread about this later, I'm often baffled how people believe rankings reflect level of play. Here's a riddle: imagine Wawrinka plays at #4 level the entire year and Murray play at #7 level, who will finish the year ranked higher?

miura88
04-03-2013, 01:02 PM
As for the Delpo + Berdych vs Ferrer debates, take their results at Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid & Roland Garros from the past 2 years to make a comparison (ignoring 250s and 500s because it takes up too much time and it would inspire fewer quips of "vulture"):

2011 Monte Carlo:
Berdych beats Rochus, loses to Ljubicic in 3rd Round
Ferrer beats F. Lopez, Raonic, Troicki and Melzer, loses to Nadal in final

2011 Madrid:
Del Potro beats Starace and Cilic, withdraws before playing Nadal in third round
Berdych beats Granollers and Monaco, loses to Bellucci in quarter finals
Ferrer beats Mannarino and Stakhovsky, loses to Djokovic in quarter finals

2011 Rome:
Berdych beats Monaco and Nieminen, loses to Gasquet in quarter finals.

2011 French Open:
Berdych loses to Robert in first round
Del Potro beats Karlovic and Kavcic, loses to Djokovic in third round
Ferrer beats Nieminen, Benneteau and Stakhovsky, loses to Monfils in fourth round


2012 Monte Carlo:
Ferrer loses to Bellucci in second round
Berdych beats Cilic, Nishikori and Murray, loses to Djokovic in semi finals

2012 Madrid:
Ferrer beats Stepanek and Almagro, loses to Federer in quarter finals
Del Potro beats Mayer, Youzhny, Cilic and Dolgopolov, loses to Berdych in semi finals
Berdych beats Anderson, Monfils, Verdasco, Del Potro, loses to Federer in final

2012 Rome:
Del Potro beats Llodra and Youzhny, loses to Tsonga in third round
Ferrer beats Verdasco, Simon and Gasquet, loses to Nadal in semi finals
Berdych beats Kubot and Almagro, loses to Nadal in quarter finals

2012 French Open:
Berdych beats Sela, Llodra and Anderson, loses to Del Potro in fourth round
Del Potro beats Montanes, Roger-Vasselin, Cilic and Berdych, loses to Federer in quarter finals
Ferrer beats Lacko, Paire, Youzhny, Granollers and Almagro, loses to Nadal in semi finals

In the past couple years Berdych and Del Potro have beaten each other once, and Ferrer beat Del Potro in the Davis Cup final, Berdych and Ferrer haven't played each other on clay for several years.

Make of that what you will.

arm
04-03-2013, 01:08 PM
Better level of play is vastly different from ranking points. As a Djokovic fan, you should know this better than most as he kept a top 4 ranking for like a year without beating any top 10 player for 10 months in 2010, ahead of players who were getting much bigger wins simply because his seeding allowed him to - he could afford to play at #8-10 level and still be top 4. The seeding system in tennis is ridiculously protective of top players, more so than in any other sport, and does generate a lot of situations where level of play is not reflected in the rankings.

I'll actually probably start a thread about this later, I'm often baffled how people believe rankings reflect level of play. Here's a riddle: imagine Wawrinka plays at #4 level the entire year and Murray play at #7 level, who will finish the year ranked higher?

The problem here is that for you consistency isn't one of the aspects that you consider when judging a players "level".

I have no idea why you do that. Results is What matter, and results get you points that get you rankings. It's math.

The Prince
04-03-2013, 01:11 PM
Being 'consistent' only indicates that there isn't a substantial variance in level of performance. It doesn't tell is anything about the actual level of quality of a player.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 01:13 PM
The problem here is that for you consistency isn't one of the aspects that you consider when judging a players "level".

I have no idea why you do that. Results is What matter, and results get you points that get you rankings. It's math.

Answer my hypothetical question then, if Murray plays at #7 level all year long and Wawrinka at #4 who will be ranked higher by the end of the year?

Results do get you rankings, but it's easier to get them when you get easier draws. If Djokovic hadn't started 2010 in top 4 his level of play throughout until the US Open would not have been enough to secure a top 4 position at the end of the year; he'd have got tougher draw and had to face top 10 players, who he couldn't beat for 10 months, earlier in draws. The seeding system in tennis is designed to offer top players staying power, it is ridiculously protective.

arm
04-03-2013, 01:13 PM
Being 'consistent' only indicates that there isn't a substantial variance in level of performance. It doesn't tell is anything about the actual level of quality of a player.

If you are consistent enough to be a top5 for over two years...

arm
04-03-2013, 01:16 PM
Answer my hypothetical question then, if Murray plays at #7 level all year long and Wawrinka at #4 who will be ranked higher by the end of the year?

Results do get you rankings, but it's easier to get them when you get easier draws. If Djokovic hadn't started 2010 in top 4 his level of play throughout until the US Open would not have been enough to secure a top 4 position at the end of the year; he'd have got tougher draw and had to face top 10 players, who he couldn't beat for 10 months, earlier in draws. The seeding system in tennis is designed to offer top players staying power, it is ridiculously protective.

The hypothetical question makes no sense because neither would play at that level every match every tournament, because if they did, odds are Wawa would end up as #4 after 12 months. And now it's my time to say that you being a Delpo fan should understand this even better. He did win USO in 2009.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 01:23 PM
The hypothetical question makes no sense because neither would play at that level every match every tournament, because if they did, odds are Wawa would end up as #4 after 12 months. And now it's my time to say that you being a Delpo fan should understand this even better. He did win USO in 2009.

Except he wouldn't, Murray would still end the year comfortably ahead of Wawrinka. Wawrinka played at a much higher level at the AO than many players who ended up getting more ranking points than him for the tournament, simply because he drew the eventual champion in round 4. His seeding means he will face top 3 players in R16 often, meaning that playing at #4 level isn't enough to get past that round. Murray, on the other hand, will get past that round even playing at #7 level because he will play inferior players.

What does Del Potro's US Open win have to do with this btw? Del Potro's 2009 year is a good example though, he played at #3 level to end the year ranked #5 simply because Murray and Djokovic were protected from Fedal and Murray/Djokovic in the QF stage. He was by far the most immediate threat to Fedal during the year and made a far bigger impact at the biggest events than Murray and Djokovic, still ended the year ranked behind them due to seeding. Soderling in 2009 too, was underranked because he kept drawing Federer, his worst matchup on tour, early in Slams when his level was enough to go further otherwise.

arm
04-03-2013, 01:31 PM
Except he wouldn't, Murray would still end the year comfortably ahead of Wawrinka. Wawrinka played at a much higher level at the AO than many players who ended up getting more ranking points than him for the tournament, simply because he drew the eventual champion in round 4. His seeding means he will face top 3 players in R16 often, meaning that playing at #4 level isn't enough to get past that round. Murray, on the other hand, will get past that round even playing at #7 level because he will play inferior players.

What does Del Potro's US Open win have to do with this btw? Del Potro's 2009 year is a good example though, he played at #3 level to end the year ranked #5 simply because Murray and Djokovic were protected from Fedal and Murray/Djokovic in the QF stage. He was by far the most immediate threat to Fedal during the year and made a far bigger impact at the biggest events than Murray and Djokovic, still ended the year ranked behind them due to seeding.

So your argument is Wawrinka and ONE tournament? Has he played on a top4 level since? Again, we always end up in the same place: consitency... :shrug: It does take tallent playing close to your best for large periods of time. If we are only going to consider the absolute peak of players, regardless of how rare those occasions are, we would have to start including Nalbandian in the GOAT discussion. :spit: That would make sense?

As for Delpo, dear, for once stop ignoring MS tournaments.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 01:40 PM
So your argument is Wawrinka and ONE tournament? Has he played on a top4 level since? Again, we always end up in the same place: consitency... :shrug: It does take tallent playing close to your best for large periods of time. If we are only going to consider the absolute peak of players, regardless of how rare those occasions are, we would have to start including Nalbandian in the GOAT discussion. :spit: That would make sense?

As for Delpo, dear, for once stop ignoring MS tournaments.

You completely missed my argument here. I'm merely analysing a flaw in the tennis ranking system/seeding system and not saying that Wawrinka should be in the top 10. All I'm saying is that even if Wawrinka played better than Murray in every tournament of the year it'd not be enough to be ranked ahead of him come the end of the year. Playing at a hypothetical #4 level, he'd lose to the top 3 in R4 of mot events with his seeding, while Murray playing at a #7 level would get past R4 of most events since he'd face inferior players. It's an hypothetical to show how rankings do not always reflect level of play at all. You can use Nishikori, Monaco, Gasquet... whoever is ranked between 10-20 to make this point.

I'm not ignoring them, although I could given the huge disparity in terms of Slam/WTF performance. It all comes back to what I said before though: due to his seeding from the start of the year, Delpo had no protection from Fedal in the QF stage of those events (either Fedal in QF or a Murray/Djokovic + one of Fedal to reach the final, which doesn't make it much easier), which made him lose earlier that he would have otherwise in some tournaments. Reverse the seedings or abolish the seeding system and JMDP would have easily outranked them. In the same year, you had Soderling being underranked in relation to his level of play due to bumping into Federer early on at Wimbledon and USO when he was in great form. The main point is that though, in a sport with a seeding system as protective as tennis, there's simply no way rankings are an accurate measure of level of play. Someone like Nishikori could play at #5 level at RG, still won't get more than R4 points for it as he will draw one of the top 4 in R4.

arm
04-03-2013, 01:50 PM
You completely missed my argument here. I'm merely analysing a flaw in the tennis ranking system/seeding system and not saying that Wawrinka should be in the top 10. All I'm saying is that even if Wawrinka played better than Murray in every tournament of the year it'd not be enough to be ranked ahead of him come the end of the year. Playing at a hypothetical #4 level, he'd lose to the top 3 in R4 of mot events with his seeding, while Murray playing at a #7 level would get past R4 of most events since he'd face inferior players. It's an hypothetical to show how rankings do not always reflect level of play at all. You can use Nishikori, Monaco, Gasquet... whoever is ranked between 10-20 to make this point.

I'm not ignoring them, although I could given the huge disparity in terms of Slam/WTF performance. It all comes back to what I said before though: due to his seeding from the start of the year, Delpo had no protection from Fedal in the QF stage of those events (either Fedal in QF or a Murray/Djokovic + one of Fedal to reach the final, which doesn't make it much easier), which made him lose earlier that he would have otherwise in some tournaments. Reverse the seedings or abolish the seeding system and JMDP would have easily outranked them. In the same year, you had Soderling being underranked in relation to his level of play due to bumping into Federer early on at Wimbledon and USO when he was in great form.

You cannot say that. :facepalm: It can happen, but it's not impossible neither unlikely. In 2007 Djokovic climbed the rankings from 16 to 3. How do you explain that? Let me tell you, because for 12 months he consistently played like #3. He did beat Rafa and Roger in a few occasions and some competitive losses against them. So if Wawa were to play with a #4 level for 12 months, odds are he would be beating Murray, Nadal, Roger ad Nole too, even if only a couple of times and therefor there is a pretty good chance he would be #4 by the end of the year.

How else do you explain a climb from #16 to #3? It's a pretty fair comparison with Wawa right now, no?

Also, what measures do you propose to change this "problem" you see?

Thanos
04-03-2013, 01:52 PM
tomic

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 02:02 PM
You cannot say that. :facepalm: It can happen, but it's not impossible neither unlikely. In 2007 Djokovic climbed the rankings from 16 to 3. How do you explain that? Let me tell you, because for 12 months he consistently played like #3. He did beat Rafa and Roger in a few occasions and some competitive losses against them. So if Wawa were to play with a #4 level for 12 months, odds are he would be beating Murray, Nadal, Roger ad Nole too, even if only a couple of times and therefor there is a pretty good chance he would be #4 by the end of the year.

How else do you explain a climb from #16 to #3? It's a pretty fair comparison with Wawa right now, no?

Also, what measures do you propose to change this "problem" you see?

Tennis was less stratified back then than it is now, every position below Federer and Nadal was up for grabs. For a while now you've had top 8 players consistently living up to their seedings for the most part, making it very difficult for anyone to break into the top 8. An equivalent of Djokovic would have a far tougher task of climbing up the rankings than Djokovic had at the time. Not to mention, as you claimed, Djokovic beat Federer and Nadal a few times in his big runs. Had he beaten everyone else but not Federer and Nadal, he'd not have got to #3 despite being the third best player.

This specific problem can be diminished by reducing the number of seeds to 16 in Slams and 8 in Masters, and by ending this 1-4 vs 13-16 and 5-8 vs 9-12 thing. It can never be fully eliminated as long as there is a seeding system though. It is wrong to believe that rankings and level of play are the same thing though, you get rankings points according to the rounds you reach in tournaments, which is not only dependent on level of play but on the draws you get and the seedings you have. For someone like say Berdych to become #1 playing better than Djokovic wouldn't be enough to do it, he'd have to play much better to pull it off since current seedings mean Djokovic will be given easier draws for the most part.

arm
04-03-2013, 02:13 PM
Tennis was less stratified back then than it is now, every position below Federer and Nadal was up for grabs. For a while now you've had top 8 players consistently living up to their seedings for the most part, making it very difficult for anyone to break into the top 8. An equivalent of Djokovic would have a far tougher task of climbing up the rankings than Djokovic had at the time. Not to mention, as you claimed, Djokovic beat Federer and Nadal a few times in his big runs. Had he beaten everyone else but not Federer and Nadal, he'd not have got to #3 despite being the third best player.

So you are just supplying arguments to the fact that consistency does matter? And because these top8 live to their seeding Wawa stays out, because he does not play like a top8 consistently like they do. I just don't understand your point.

And Djokovic beating Rafa and Roger is only a consequence of his #3 level and nothing else. Wawrinka, or any other player, plays with a Top4 level for 12 months and odds are be is #4 by the end of the year. Simple. Davydenko is a good example here as well, before Murray he was a consistent #4 and he did win MS tournaments, just like he did beat Rafa and Nole a few times.


This specific problem can be diminished by reducing the number of seeds to 16 in Slams and 8 in Masters, and by ending this 1-4 vs 13-16 and 5-8 vs 9-12 thing. It can never be fully eliminated as long as there is a seeding system though. It is wrong to believe that rankings and level of play are the same thing though, you get rankings points according to the rounds you reach in tournaments, which is not only dependent on level of play but on the draws you get and the seedings you have. For someone like say Berdych to become #1 playing better than Djokovic wouldn't be enough to do it, he'd have to play much better to pull it off since current seedings mean Djokovic will be given easier draws for the most part.

So your solution would be putting the #17th player in a bigger risk of meeting a top8 much earlier in slams? That would help him climb up the rankings?

Current seeding does give Djokovic, etc easier draws. But they got their by successfully going deeper and deeper in tournaments having much harder draws.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 02:26 PM
So you are just supplying arguments to the fact that consistency does matter? And because these top8 live to their seeding Wawa stays out, because he does not play like a top8 consistently like they do. I just don't understand your point.

And Djokovic beating Rafa and Roger is only a consequence of his #3 level and nothing else. Wawrinka, or any other player, plays with a Top4 level for 12 months and odds are be is #4 by the end of the year. Simple. Davydenko is a good example here as well, before Murray he was a consistent #4 and he did win MS tournaments, just like he did beat Rafa and Nole a few times.



So your solution would be putting the #17th player in a bigger risk of meeting a top8 much earlier in slams? That would help him climb up the rankings?

Current seeding does give Djokovic, etc easier draws. But they got their by successfully going deeper and deeper in tournaments having much harder draws.

When did I ever say consistency didn't matter? It's not the reason Wawrinka's top 8 chances are limited though; even if he is consistent he'll face a top 4 player in R16, while the players ranked 5-8 will face a 9-12 player, making it easier for them to go far in tournaments. That's the issue here: playing like a top 8 consistently won't get him into the top 8, he needs to play like a top 4 because those are the opponents he needs to beat to progress past R4 of most events.

Davydenko is an awful example tbh, since he kept a stable ranking for many years before his wrist injury in 2010, he didn't have to make a huge climb. Not to mention that surface homogenization enhances the problems of the seedind system, what with top players able ti perform consistently everywhere far more easily than before.

Yup, that would make rankings shift far more often, as top players wouldn't have an easy ride early in big events anymore, top guys are far more prone to upsets early on when they're not really into the tournament yet and having to face better player in early rounds will generate more upsets and allow unfancied players to have big runs.

Yes, Djokovic earned this 'privilege' but it's a vicious cycle that allows him to drop his level significantly and still keep a stable ranking in the top 4.

Caesar1844
04-03-2013, 02:35 PM
The problem here is that for you consistency isn't one of the aspects that you consider when judging a players "level".
That is just Lenders. If he had to take into account consistency he'd have to admit that Del Potro is actually pretty shit and overrated. Ignore him, he is a parody.

There are not really any claycourt specialists any more. If you are good enough to succeed on clay then you are good enough to succeed on modern hardcourts.

The guys like Mugro who have winning records on clay and losing records on hardcourts are that way mostly because they choose not to play many HC tournaments.

arm
04-03-2013, 02:36 PM
It's a vicious cycle that can be aplied to every single player on tour. Rules and conditions are the same for everyone at a given time. That's as fair as it gets.

I agree that the surface homonization is a good aspect to be discussed, but still, the surface is the same for everyone at a given time.

Nikfonso
04-03-2013, 02:39 PM
How about Melzer or was he just a one hit wonder a few year back at RG?

Oh and not forgetting the forgotten man Soderling?

Caesar1844
04-03-2013, 02:42 PM
Steroidking is finished.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 02:42 PM
That is just Lenders. If he had to take into account consistency he'd have to admit that Del Potro is actually pretty shit and overrated. Ignore him, he is a parody.

There are not really any claycourt specialists any more. If you are good enough to succeed on clay then you are good enough to succeed on modern hardcourts.

The guys like Mugro who have winning records on clay and losing records on hardcourts are that way mostly because they choose not to play many HC tournaments.

You're the last person who should say anything about parodies after this post:

Hewitt - v Safin, AO 2005
Rafter - v Ivanisevic, WIMB 2002
Edberg - v Chang, FO 1989

Rafter would probably be most disappointed about the fact that he never played in a winning Davis Cup final. Australia made the final three years in a row from 1999-2001. In 1999 Rafter was injured for the final that Australia won. In 2000 he retired in the first singles rubber due to injury and Australia lost. In 2001 he was unable to play the deciding singles rubber due to injury, and again Australia lost.

Great player and could have done a lot more if not for his rotator cuff problems.

Written by the same poster who insistently claims Del Potro's injuries are excuses :lol:

It's a vicious cycle that can be aplied to every single player on tour. Rules and conditions are the same for everyone at a given time. That's as fair as it gets.

I agree that the surface homonization is a good aspect to be discussed, but still, the surface is the same for everyone at a given time.

I didn't say it wasn't fair, only that ranking and level of play are not one and the same. Of course everyone is playing by the same rules so it's no unfair.

Caesar1844
04-03-2013, 02:48 PM
lol @ trying to compare the two.

2x Slams + 2x Slam finals + 2 Masters = pedigree.

1 Slam = fluke.

Pretty reasonable to claim Rafter would have done more if he wasn't injured so much, because when he was playing he proved that he was quality. Del Potro's time off just meant he spent less time on the tour sucking.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 02:51 PM
lol @ trying to compare the two.

2x Slams + 2x Slam finals + 2 Masters = pedigree.

1 Slam = fluke.

Rafter would have done more if he wasn't injured so much because when he was playing he proved that he was quality. Del Potro has just failed over and over and over.

The irony is strong in that one. Parody eh?

Would Haas have done better if he wasn't so injured so much in your expert opinion? I mean 0 Slams, 0 finals, not even a fluke...

Caesar1844
04-03-2013, 02:53 PM
Haas isn't a brainless ball basher, so he is a better bet than Spudtro.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 02:57 PM
Haas isn't a brainless ball basher, so he is a better bet than Spudtro.

Of course he is :lol: Basically injury is a factor for the players you like but not a factor for those you don't like, and you still talk about parody :lol:?

Caesar1844
04-03-2013, 03:03 PM
I have no idea what it would have done for Haas. I am just saying his game is more consistent than Spudtro's, so he would be a more sensible bet to achieve something.

Comparing a multi-slam winner like Rafter to Spudtro is stupid. Rafter was proven quality. Spudtro fluked a tournament, got injured, and his fans use it as an excuse for him achieving zero outside of a two week period for his entire career.

Mark Lenders
04-03-2013, 03:06 PM
I have no idea what it would have done for Haas. I am just saying his game is more consistent than Spudtro's, so he would be a more sensible bet to achieve something.

Comparing a multi-slam winner like Rafter to Spudtro is stupid. Rafter was proven quality. Spudtro fluked a tournament, got injured, and his fans use it as an excuse for him achieving zero outside of a two week period for his entire career.

Rafter has won exactly one more Slam than Del Potro - and definitely didn't do it by beating players of Federer and Nadal's caliber back to back when he was 20 years old. Rafter has indeed had the greater career of the two, but to claim Del Potro is not proven quality is absurd: he won his Slam with a route that Rafter would probably never have been able to go through.

juan27
04-03-2013, 03:26 PM
clay specialist are dead , the only real clay specialists it`s nadal , after him , we have mugs like almugro , monaco , bellucci and others , and ferrer talking about that he is a clay specialist but his better archivements are in hard and indoor.....

in other times you have kafelnikov , courier , muster , kuerten , moya , ferrero , chang and others.

MaxPower
04-03-2013, 03:38 PM
top100

Litotes
04-03-2013, 05:03 PM
clay specialist are dead , the only real clay specialists it`s nadal , after him , we have mugs like almugro , monaco , bellucci and others , and ferrer talking about that he is a clay specialist but his better archivements are in hard and indoor.....

in other times you have kafelnikov , courier , muster , kuerten , moya , ferrero , chang and others.

Excuse me, I am not questioning that you had clay specialists, but I feel your selection is not very illustrative of the fact. Kafelnikov won 26 career titles, of which three were taken on clay. He won as many titles on grass, despite the short season..... The fact that one of his two slams came in Paris does not make him a clay specialist. Courier won five of his 23 titles on clay, and like Kafelnikov won half his slams at the AO. Chang won no less then seven masters titles on HC. How many he won on clay? Zero. In total four of his 34 titles were taken on clay. He also reached two HC slam finals and four SFs, so he was clearly better on HC than clay, his lone slam title notwithstanding.

You could well replace these with names like Bruguera and Berasategui.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 05:09 PM
clay specialist are dead , the only real clay specialists it`s nadal , after him , we have mugs like almugro , monaco , bellucci and others , and ferrer talking about that he is a clay specialist but his better archivements are in hard and indoor.....

in other times you have kafelnikov , courier , muster , kuerten , moya , ferrero , chang and others.

Normally, the big pool of qualities and abilities to succeed on clay was distributed quite equally to several players. Instead of this distribution, one player got all the qualities and abilities for himself, making him the best player ever on the surface.

There are much less claycourt players, but Nadal is by far the better claycourt player we have seen. Ferrero, Costa, Corretja, Gaudio, Coria, Brugera were good, but far from Nadal's level. Even Kuerten couldn't compare.

Timot
04-03-2013, 05:19 PM
Speaking of clay specialists today can be misleading since homogenization of surfaces and hard-court dominance doesn't give much point in specializing in clay. So there's a lot of guys who do well on different surfaces and they can be slightly better on clay but far from "specialized". Sure, there are some guys like Nadal who's abilities on clay are much higher than elsewhere but they are rather rare.

ProdigyEng
04-03-2013, 05:21 PM
Has Lenders mentioned Ferrer yet?

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 05:22 PM
Has Lenders mentioned Ferrer yet?

He tried to spin that Del Potro and Berdych were better claycourter than Ferrer.

Newcomer
04-03-2013, 05:37 PM
He tried to spin that Del Potro and Berdych were better claycourter than Ferrer.

they are

juan27
04-03-2013, 06:42 PM
Normally, the big pool of qualities and abilities to succeed on clay was distributed quite equally to several players. Instead of this distribution, one player got all the qualities and abilities for himself, making him the best player ever on the surface.

There are much less claycourt players, but Nadal is by far the better claycourt player we have seen. Ferrero, Costa, Corretja, Gaudio, Coria, Brugera were good, but far from Nadal's level. Even Kuerten couldn't compare.

of course nadal is the best of all , maybe in comparassion with borg only.

but , if nadal would face these guys it`s much more probably that he would be lose much more than now with only federer or nole like main opposition.

I mean , they are great players , but they are not clay specialists , they best tennis are in fast surfaces.

I remember guys like kuerten , kafelnikov or corretja owned federer in clay.

with guys like bruguera , moya , kuerten , ferrero , courier , coria , gaudio and more in the same tour , nadal would need much more work to win in clay.

similar with fed in fast courts.

but for the nadal`s tards , federer won mugs in fast courts and nadal in clay beated legends....

both players are similars

HKz
04-03-2013, 06:45 PM
Just watch many of the lower ranked players during the Golden Swing. A good portion if not the majority of those players can be classified as clay court specialists.

Kyle_Johansen
04-03-2013, 07:46 PM
Ferrer's best surface may be clay but he has a better shot at challenging the top guys on hard.

tribalfusion
04-03-2013, 08:00 PM
of course nadal is the best of all , maybe in comparassion with borg only.

but , if nadal would face these guys it`s much more probably that he would be lose much more than now with only federer or nole like main opposition.

I mean , they are great players , but they are not clay specialists , they best tennis are in fast surfaces.

I remember guys like kuerten , kafelnikov or corretja owned federer in clay.

with guys like bruguera , moya , kuerten , ferrero , courier , coria , gaudio and more in the same tour , nadal would need much more work to win in clay.

similar with fed in fast courts.

but for the nadal`s tards , federer won mugs in fast courts and nadal in clay beated legends....

both players are similars



I think you have it backwards; by now the best claycourt players are also going to be hybrid players as the surfaces are a bit more similar and good movement has become so much more important whereas before movement was really the claycourt specialist's big advantage.

Federer and Nadal led the way and the rest followed. People are going to look more like midgets or non-specialists when playing Nadal, Federer and Djokovic as you say but not because they have somehow become innately worse than Corretja etc. Corretja might have developed more or a complex for example after losing over and over against Nadal etc too for that matter so I would go easy with this talk of mental midgets.


And you say Kafelnikov "owned" Federer: Federer won the only match they played on clay and it was in 2002 when Federer was not even in his prime so come on that's just completely wrong.

Same thing for Kuerten: they played 2 times and split the meetings. Federer also played Corretja close in their matches on clay but again, come on man Roger was 18 and 19 years old when they played in 2000-2001.

That's a very strange definition of "owning" to say the least and shows how "objective" you are.

Caesar1844
04-03-2013, 10:12 PM
Rafter has won exactly one more Slam than Del Potro - and definitely didn't do it by beating players of Federer and Nadal's caliber back to back when he was 20 years old. Rafter has indeed had the greater career of the two, but to claim Del Potro is not proven quality is absurd: he won his Slam with a route that Rafter would probably never have been able to go through.
One more slam. Made two more finals. Won two more MS titles. Clean sweep of the major US Summer HC titles.

Del Potro fluked a Slam.

One tournament does not equate to 'proven quality', don't be absurd. Rafter did more than Del Potro could ever dream of doing with his low-margin, erratic ballbashing. The only reason anyone rates Spudtro at all is that he got injured before it became obvious what a one-hit wonder he was.

Chase Visa
04-04-2013, 01:45 AM
How much had Rafter achieved at Delpo's age?

Edda
04-04-2013, 02:07 AM
Rafael Nadal and David Ferrer.

Mark Lenders
04-04-2013, 02:58 AM
they are

This.

How much had Rafter achieved at Delpo's age?

It wasn't a serious post, the guy is definitely going for self parody.

redshift36188
04-04-2013, 04:07 AM
Not even Nadal is a true clay court specialist, he just happens to have a game that does very well on the surface, but he doesn't build the points like clay specialists back in the 90s and early 00s.

redshift36188
04-04-2013, 04:21 AM
One tournament does not equate to 'proven quality', don't be absurd. Rafter did more than Del Potro could ever dream of doing with his low-margin, erratic ballbashing. The only reason anyone rates Spudtro at all is that he got injured before it became obvious what a one-hit wonder he was.
How is that obvious? How can you know that DelPo would have a similar career if he didn't got injured?

I'm not particularly a fan of his tennis, but the man is a beast when fit.

vpmrosulate
04-04-2013, 05:26 AM
He tried to spin that Del Potro and Berdych were better claycourter than Ferrer.

To be fair, he wasn't the one who started it.

I personally don't really see why they would be brought up as specialists, though, since neither fit the definition of the clay court specialist and themselves said hard was their favorite surface.

That said, I do think JMDP is pretty good on clay, whether he likes it or not, since he won his first two titles there, and probably would have done more at RG with a more linear career trajectory. :rolleyes:

Caesar1844
04-04-2013, 09:38 AM
How much had Rafter achieved at Delpo's age?
Nothing. He had a sophisticated game that took a lot of time to get together, unlike Spudtro's mindless ballbashing.

Spudtro will be lucky to win a Masters title. The guy is a fluke.

How is that obvious? How can you know that DelPo would have a similar career if he didn't got injured?
Because his entire game is low-margin. When it comes together it is unstoppable, but players like that are lucky if it comes together for one major tournament in their entire careers.

The wrist injury was the best thing ever to happen to Del Potro outside of winning the USO. It turned him from a second-rate Thomas Johansson into this guy everyone regards as a lost talent.

Surcouf
04-04-2013, 10:03 AM
Nothing. He had a sophisticated game that took a lot of time to get together, unlike Spudtro's mindless ballbashing.

Spudtro will be lucky to win a Masters title. The guy is a fluke.


Because his entire game is low-margin. When it comes together it is unstoppable, but players like that are lucky if it comes together for one major tournament in their entire careers.

The wrist injury was the best thing ever to happen to Del Potro outside of winning the USO. It turned him from a second-rate Thomas Johansson into this guy everyone regards as a lost talent.


It's like you forgot that Del Potro just beat the world top 2 ranked players in IW and lost a close 3 setters against Nadal in the final.

Surcouf
04-04-2013, 10:04 AM
Not even Nadal is a true clay court specialist, he just happens to have a game that does very well on the surface, but he doesn't build the points like clay specialists back in the 90s and early 00s.

Nadal is the best point builder of the tour, and that's one of the reason he is so good on clay.

Caesar1844
04-04-2013, 02:34 PM
It's like you forgot that Del Potro just beat the world top 2 ranked players in IW and lost a close 3 setters against Nadal in the final.
Call me when he wins a tournament above 500 level.

tyruk14
04-04-2013, 04:43 PM
Inside the body of Rafael Nadal.

Or retired.

fedalrock
04-04-2013, 05:40 PM
all those unknown players who play the South American Golden Swing. :shrug:
In the top 50, Monaco and Almagro come to mind .

Schumacher
04-05-2013, 08:02 AM
Hi, I´m a newcomer on this forum. Happy to be here and looking forward to discuss :-) :hatoff:

Clay court specialists? Some people here mentioned players, who are good on clay - but "clay court specialist" mean to me the player, who is performing in a far better way on clay than on the other surface - so players like Djokovic, Federer or Del Potro don´t belong here.

Imo players, who belong to this group: Nadal definitely, Ferrer maybe (but recently his results on HC are at least comparable to his clay achievements), definitely Almagro and generally most of Spaniards and Argentinians (Berlocq, Zeballos, Ramos, Verdasco, Monaco...)

leng jai
04-05-2013, 08:11 AM
Call me when he wins a tournament above 500 level.

Stop with the nonsense. The only reason he didn't win IW is because he had a ridiculously hard draw. What he produced there was far more impressive than what Ferrer did in Paris last year.

Caesar1844
04-05-2013, 08:16 AM
And the reason he had a hard draw is because he is shit and is seeded low.

"Not as bad as Ferrer" is hardly a ringing endorsement anyway.

Mark Lenders
04-05-2013, 12:22 PM
Nothing. He had a sophisticated game that took a lot of time to get together, unlike Spudtro's mindless ballbashing.

Spudtro will be lucky to win a Masters title. The guy is a fluke.


Because his entire game is low-margin. When it comes together it is unstoppable, but players like that are lucky if it comes together for one major tournament in their entire careers.

The wrist injury was the best thing ever to happen to Del Potro outside of winning the USO. It turned him from a second-rate Thomas Johansson into this guy everyone regards as a lost talent.

Why don't you just admit you never watched a match of his? But you could have at least checked some stats, he just recently beat Murray and Djokovic by hittng less winners than them, by being more steady off the baseline.

Out of curiosity, I took a look at some old Del Potro threads to see if I could find some gems:


The odds of him doing it again are absurdly slim and not helped by him constantly being injured. Personally I doubt he will ever even get back in the top 10 for a decent amount of time. For the remainder of his career will be little more than a potentially dangerous unseeded or low-seeded player.



He's got more chance of doing that than winning another Slam, slim though it is.


Look at what you're doing, comparing him to Mardy Fish. Way to make my point for me. Even Fishsticks can dominate the minor tournaments in the USO Series and he's got less than a snowball's chance in hell of winning a Slam.

Come back and bump this thread if Del Spudtro ever wins another Slam. Or, more likely, I'll bump it in two years when he's ranked 150-odd, getting bageled in Challengers and trying to string together two wins in between injury layoffs.

Clearly you know what you're talking about :lol: Just give it a rest, he did win a Slam beating the two best players of the XXI century and he will be regarded as a lost talent even if he wins another Slam.

Caesar1844
04-05-2013, 12:31 PM
Why don't you just admit you never watched a match of his? But you could have at least checked some stats, he just recently beat Murray and Djokovic by hittng less winners than them, by being more steady off the baseline.
Only proves my point. Unless Djokovic or Murray throw the game away with errors, he is not good enough to beat them.

Clearly you know what you're talking about :lol: Just give it a rest, he did win a Slam beating the two best players of the XXI century and he will be regarded as a lost talent even if he wins another Slam.
Leaving aside the creepiness of you digging through my old posts, neither of them have been disproven yet. If you looked through my posts you'd see I have consistently acknowledged he is a dangerous player. Just not one capable of winning tournaments of note. The comment about him being bagelled in Challengers was to illustrate how ridiculous the idea of him winning another Slam is.

Anyway, I wouldn't get into playing that game if I were you. I could dig through your old posts and find your claims every year for the last three years about how this year is going to be 'Spudtro's year'.

Mark Lenders
04-05-2013, 12:37 PM
Only proves my point. Unless Djokovic or Murray throw the game away with errors, he is not good enough to beat them.

No, it doesn't, the fact that he can be more steady off the back of the court than Murray and Djokovic back to back pretty much nullifies the 'low margin' nonsense.


Leaving aside the creepiness of you digging through my old posts, neither of them have been disproven yet. If you looked through my posts you'd see I have consistently acknowledged he is a dangerous player. Just not one capable of winning tournaments of note. The comment about him being bagelled in Challengers was to illustrate how ridiculous the idea of him winning another Slam is.

Anyway, I wouldn't get into playing that game if I were you. I could dig through your old posts and find your claims every year for the last three years about how this year is going to be 'Spudtro's year'.

If you can do this, I'll admit Del Potro is a fluke :lol: This would require (a) finding posts from before I even became an MTF member since I only joined a year ago and (b) finding posts where I claim a certain year will be Delpo's/dominated by Delpo, which I never did. Good luck.

leng jai
04-05-2013, 12:56 PM
And the reason he had a hard draw is because he is shit and is seeded low.

"Not as bad as Ferrer" is hardly a ringing endorsement anyway.

Hard draw = shit because you're seeded too low.

Easy draw = vulture/cakewalk draw with everyone bending over to the top 4.

I fail to see how being a low seed changes the fact that what he did there was more impressive than most people's run who actually won the tournament.

Topspindoctor
04-05-2013, 01:03 PM
Hard draw = shit because you're seeded too low.

Easy draw = vulture/cakewalk draw with everyone bending over to the top 4.

I fail to see how being a low seed changes the fact that what he did there was more impressive than most people's run who actually won the tournament.

and nobody will give a shit about this in a month. Fact remains he hasn't won a masters title and has never been to slam SF after 2009. And some fangirls still use wrist "injury" as an excuse. :facepalm: Also I;d rather my favorite players won a title in an "unimpressive" fashion than mug out after a "heroic run", I am sure Noserer sleeps with his RG title between him and Mirka, no matter how tainted and undeserved it was (never faced Nadal, taken to 5 by Shitro/Muggy Haas/Choker in first ever slam final etc)

leng jai
04-05-2013, 01:07 PM
and nobody will give a shit about this in a month. Fact remains he hasn't won a masters title and has never been to slam SF after 2009. And some fangirls still use wrist "injury" as an excuse. :facepalm: Also I;d rather my favorite players won a title in an "unimpressive" fashion than mug out after a "heroic run", I am sure Noserer sleeps with his RG title between him and Mirka, no matter how tainted and undeserved it was (never faced Nadal, taken to 5 by Shitro/Muggy Haas/Choker in first ever slam final etc)

It's irrelevant who remembers what or what your preference is when you're objectively measuring which feat is more impressive. People who keep using the "no masters series" schtick is nonsense since by your logic he'd be a better player by beating 6 gimps to the total rather than beating Murray/Djokovic and losing to Nadal in 3 in the final.

GSMnadal
04-05-2013, 01:09 PM
It's irrelevant who remembers what or what your preference is when you're objectively measuring which feat is more impressive. People who keep using the "no masters series" schtick is nonsense since by your logic he'd be a better player by beating 6 gimps to the total rather than beating Murray/Djokovic and losing to Nadal in 3 in the final.

Sadly that's how the majority of MTF thinks with their stupid 17>.. logic

Caesar1844
04-05-2013, 01:22 PM
No, it doesn't, the fact that he can be more steady off the back of the court than Murray and Djokovic back to back pretty much nullifies the 'low margin' nonsense.
No, it just shows that he has no weapons if he isn't ballbashing, and requires his opponents to mug away a match to give him victory.


If you can do this, I'll admit Del Potro is a fluke :lol: This would require (a) finding posts from before I even became an MTF member since I only joined a year ago and (b) finding posts where I claim a certain year will be Delpo's/dominated by Delpo, which I never did. Good luck.
I cannot be bothered digging through your thousands of idiotic posts to find the most idiotic. Every time you post here you show your ignorance anyway.

Caesar1844
04-05-2013, 01:24 PM
It's irrelevant who remembers what or what your preference is when you're objectively measuring which feat is more impressive. People who keep using the "no masters series" schtick is nonsense since by your logic he'd be a better player by beating 6 gimps to the total rather than beating Murray/Djokovic and losing to Nadal in 3 in the final.
The bottom line is that Spudtro doesn't have what it takes to string matches together and win a top-tier tournament, other than those two weeks three years ago when he got phenomenally lucky.

He has always been able to fluke a match here and there over the top players. IW is just further evidence of that.

leng jai
04-05-2013, 01:31 PM
The bottom line is that Spudtro doesn't have what it takes to string matches together and win a top-tier tournament, other than those two weeks three years ago when he got phenomenally lucky.

He has always been able to fluke a match here and there over the top players. IW is just further evidence of that.

So the more matches he wins against the top players is just further proof of his "flukes". The logic, there is none. He strung several matches together at IW against the best players in the world and just fell short. Djokovic would struggle too if he had to beat Nadal, Murray and Federer to win a MS title.

Please explain to phenomenal luck you speak of in the 2009 USO. Murray's USO was far "luckier" so what would be the adjective you'd use for that title?

Nathaliia
04-05-2013, 01:51 PM
cant believe i actually read this whole thread and only an odd post here or there replied to the original question :haha:

imo all these top players are pretty much all-rounders, their preferations might be just minor - yes, it's probably due to surface homogenization - times when the great clay champions, likes of gaudio, got allergic to grass at wimbledon or the world leader (hi, pete) was losing to delgado or blanco at RG are just gone.

this is why i think about the clay specialists we can talk only about these lower level players, who still perform on carpets of sarajevo or clays of monza

for instance, alessio di mauro - would you believe this italian ex top 70 player has just performed this week in his first hc tournament since 2007?

these specializations would typically start below the top 30 with guys like andujar, bellucci, zeballos, berlocq, but even they have their feast in miami or to smaller extend indian wells of today. fognini, montanes are also clay specialists

Caesar1844
04-05-2013, 02:51 PM
So the more matches he wins against the top players is just further proof of his "flukes". The logic, there is none. He strung several matches together at IW against the best players in the world and just fell short. Djokovic would struggle too if he had to beat Nadal, Murray and Federer to win a MS title.

Please explain to phenomenal luck you speak of in the 2009 USO. Murray's USO was far "luckier" so what would be the adjective you'd use for that title?
I have no real opinion on Murray's title, I lost interest in the tournament by about the fourth round.

Latter rounds of slams are so boring these days.

Roy Emerson
04-05-2013, 03:03 PM
And the reason he had a hard draw is because he is shit and is seeded low.

"Not as bad as Ferrer" is hardly a ringing endorsement anyway.

Del Potro is a slam winner something Ferrer will never be. :shrug:

Ibracadabra
04-05-2013, 03:16 PM
Milos raonic and john isner. This much is for sure.

madmax
04-05-2013, 03:17 PM
The bottom line is that Spudtro doesn't have what it takes to string matches together and win a top-tier tournament, other than those two weeks three years ago when he got phenomenally lucky.

He has always been able to fluke a match here and there over the top players. IW is just further evidence of that.

did you actually watch him play during that US Open run?:unsure: Dude was unplayable at times the way he was hitting his forehand - Fed was hopelessly overpowered in that US Open final and I instantly knew he was gonna lose when GOATro started redlining his game late in that match. When argie is truly ON, opponents may as well pack their stuff or just bow down and leave the court gracefully:wavey:

Caesar1844
04-05-2013, 03:21 PM
did you actually watch him play during that US Open run?:unsure: Dude was unplayable at times the way he was hitting his forehand - Fed was hopelessly overpowered in that US Open final and I instantly knew he was gonna lose when GOATro started redlining his game late in that match. When argie is truly ON, opponents may as well pack their stuff or just bow down and leave the court gracefully:wavey:
Agree with all that.

Just saying he was incredibly lucky to redline his game during two weeks at the right time of year and win a major title. Hasn't managed to do it at any other quality tournament during his career.

This is the problem. He's low margin and patchy, and that is why he will always be dangerous to top players but never win another slam. He needs the stars to align, and keep aligning over and over for numerous matches in a row in order to win silverware. Most players of his type are lucky if it happens once in their career.