How Disrepectful is the term dirtballer/claycourt specialist? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How Disrepectful is the term dirtballer/claycourt specialist?

Plastic Bertrand
04-08-2005, 05:05 AM
I think this thread has been before and if so I apologise in advance.

Yes, you're right, those dirt-balling clay-court specialist grinders should have their own tour and ranking, so the noble fast-courters could play their beautiful, well-balanced game in peace.

This is so true and these players who play better on clay are less worthy of playing this game and are a blight on tennis as a spectacle.

Yes, the best of all is that anyone coming from a particular country eg Spain or Argentina are automatically claycourt specialists.

This includes David Nalbandian who has said himself that clay is his worst surface, but because of his nationality he is called one.

There should be a term for guys like Rusedski or Roddick for an example who excels on faster surfaces, but alas to my surprise there isn't a term for that at all.

Devotee
04-08-2005, 05:16 AM
these players who play better on clay are less worthy of playing this game and are a blight on tennis as a spectacle.

I'm curious to know if in the countries of Spain, Argentina, etc., is there this same attitude that some players fall into the category of claycourter?

Chloe le Bopper
04-08-2005, 05:19 AM
This has been done, but it's always worth revisiting. The old thread has a quote from JCF in it, that I will find later tomorrow. Basically he makes it realyl clear that he hates the term.

Neely
04-08-2005, 05:49 AM
Oh cool, a new thread. I think I've never done this before so let me go on...


First of all, I don't think that these terms are disrespectful. It matters how it is said and where these terms are applied in what context.

If somebody called JCF a claycourt specialist or dirtballer this would be very unjustified because this guy has done much more on various other surfaces so this term doesn't suit his achievements. However, he has had his biggest success on clay, so I would say "claycourt specialist" isn't something bad at all but he shouldn't be reduced to only a claycourt specialist as we all know he has done much more.

Claycourt specialist? Just like Popp/Moodie/Elseneer & Co are well known for being "grass court specialists"... or as it wouldn't be wrong to consider the likes of PimPim and Söderling as indoor specialists so far in their careers, because they are extraordinarly strong in these events...


As I said, nothing wrong with the term itself if it suits the players achievements and if it is used to describe a certain strength of a player.

bad gambler
04-08-2005, 05:52 AM
I use the term dirtballer all the time, but don't mean to be disrespectful about it just makes the term claycourter more colourful :lol:

Chloe le Bopper
04-08-2005, 05:59 AM
First of all, I don't think that these terms are disrespectful. It matters how it is said and where these terms are applied in what context.

Neely, I do agree with this. It does depend on when it is applied. The reason I give such a kneejerk reaction is that it's so often applied to people who don't deserve it, imo. More often than not it's applied when the person saying it knows little more about the player than the three letters next to their name: ARG, ESP.

For example, there were people calling Rafa a dirtballer before they had ever seen him hit a ball. There are people who still call Coria it, and I think Coria has gotten to the point where he deserves more respect than that.

If somebody calls Alberto Martin a dirtballer, I probably won't lose sleep over it. If he goes on to make the finals in Miami and people still call him that, I won't be impressed ... (I'm speaking hypothetically ;))

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 06:06 AM
The term itself is nearly always used in a condescending manner, even more condescending than most of my posts in this forum.

The truth I do agree with the original quotation that they should leave the tour and let all the others play their fastcourt games in peace, it would make things a lot more interesting.

Neely, you don't understand that the label is thrown about and has been thrown about players who have done well off clay. Nadal now, he is just a claycourter, even though he has made a TMS final on a hardcourt and did well at the AO.

Corretja and Guga got called the term even though they won the TMC indoors and in Corretja and Moya's case they won a TMS on hardcourt, yet the label sticks.

A guy like the future Wimbledon champion Oscar Hernandez, Jose Acasuso and Fernando Vicente could be called claycourt specialists and there wouldn't be too much objection, but when they called people like Corretja, Moya, Muster, Wilander, Kuerten and Ferrero the same, then it shows how much of a grasp that these people have.

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 06:07 AM
I'm curious to know if in the countries of Spain, Argentina, etc., is there this same attitude that some players fall into the category of claycourter?

No, they are not that interested in labels and concentrate on the relative player.

Devotee
04-08-2005, 06:10 AM
Well, George, if someone asked you if you are a dirtballer, would you answer yes or no or exactly what?

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 06:12 AM
Well, George, if someone asked you if you are a dirtballer, would you answer yes or no or exactly what?

If someone was stupid enough to ask that question I would give them a stupid answer.

Devotee
04-08-2005, 06:16 AM
If someone was stupid enough to ask that question I would give them a stupid answer.


But do you mostly play on clay? Give me a genuine answer.

Lee
04-08-2005, 06:17 AM
Corretja and Guga got called the term even though they won the TMC indoors and in Corretja and Moya's case they won a TMS on hardcourt, yet the label sticks.


Guga won TMS Cincy in 2001 and finalists in TMS Indian Wells 2003 and TMS Canada 1997. :p

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 06:19 AM
Guga won TMS Cincy in 2001 and finalists in TMS Indian Wells 2003 and TMS Canada 1997. :p

Yes, I know Guga made finals off the clay, but he is in that original batch of those guys that have performed well off clay, but still is stigmatised as a dirty claycourter.

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 06:24 AM
I think this thread has been before and if so I apologise in advance.

Yes, I started the thread and yes the question needs posing and I am looking forward to even more rubbish articles during the clay seasons from people who don't know what they are talking about.

Here is an old article which sums up Corretja's feelings.

Wise man Corretja lectures on thriving Spanish game
2004-05-26 15:14:13 GMT (Reuters)
By Francois Thomazeau

PARIS, May 26 (Reuters) - Alex Corretja, one of the wise veterans of Spanish tennis, gave a lecture on the state of the game in his country after easing into the French Open third round at the expense of Paradorn Srichapan on Wednesday.

"There are still some people who don't know about (Spanish) tennis and say we're all clay-court specialists," Corretja said after his 6-4 7-5 6-3 victory over the 13th seeded Thai.

"Just look at the statistics and look at the results of our careers and you'll realise we are not just clay-court specialists.

"I think (journalists) are just bored and don't know what to write," added Corretja, a finalist at Roland Garros in 1998 and 2001.

The Spaniard, who has boycotted Wimbledon in the past in protest at the tournament's seeding system, warned that his compatriots were capable of shining on all surfaces.

"I think now we can say that, even on grass, we can play very good tennis," he said.

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 06:24 AM
But do you mostly play on clay? Give me a genuine answer.

I am not a pro player, so why is this important? I just gave a link to Corretja's feelings about the term.

Neely
04-08-2005, 06:26 AM
Neely, you don't understand that the label is thrown about and has been thrown about players who have done well off clay.
Don't worry, I perfectly understand it. If I remember correctly it was me who illustrated (always illustrated since being on this board) on the example of Ferrero why he is more than just a claycourter ;)

At the same time I agree with Rebecca, that the "label" is much more likely to be thrown at players from ESP and ARG or any South American country.


Corretja and Guga got called the term even though they won the TMC indoors and in Corretja and Moya's case they won a TMS on hardcourt, yet the label sticks.
And why does it stick? Because of these players' biggest successes (may not apply to Corretja's case). Guga has multiple French Open crowns, Corretja was -despite a few nice runs on non-clay which included winning the Masters Cup- always known for his best play on clay and Moya has also won the French Open on clay and no other Slam on grass or hardcourt.
Again I'm repeating, it matters how "claycourt specialist" is applied. Nothing wrong calling Guga or other mentioned players a claycourt specialist, but it should not happen in an excluding(!) manner. That what it's all about.

Devotee
04-08-2005, 06:26 AM
"I think now we can say that, even on grass, we can play very good tennis," he said.

Yes, indeed, Corretja himself beat Mr. Grass (Sampras) on grass in 5 sets during Davis Cup a few years ago.

Devotee
04-08-2005, 06:30 AM
If I remember correctly it was me who illustrated (always illustrated since being on this board) on the example of Ferrero why he is more than just a claycourter ;)

But, Neely, would you say "just a" hardcourter?

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 06:34 AM
Don't worry, I perfectly understand it. If I remember correctly it was me who illustrated on the example of Ferrero why he is more than just a claycourter.

At the same time I agree with Rebecca, that the "label" is much more likely to be thrown at players from ESP and ARG or any South American country.

I was typing as you wrote your initial response, so I missed it.

And why does it stick? Because of these players' biggest successes (may not apply to Corretja's case). Guga has multiple French Open crowns, Corretja was -despite a few nice runs on non-clay which included winning the Masters Cup- always known for his best play on clay and Moya has also won the French Open on clay and no other Slam on grass or hardcourt.
Again I'm repeating, it matters how "claycourt specialist" is applied. Nothing wrong calling Guga or other mentioned players a claycourt specialist, but it should not happen in an excluding manner.

It's never applied in a positive manner and how could it be? Even for the ones that are claycourt specialists like the players I mentioned it's accurate in their case and that's it.

Wilander had the term as well and so did Muster, even though he did well later in his career on hardcourts and could only play on it for limited times. Coria is another one who has the potential and even if he won a Slam on hardcourt, the label would stick.

Yes, every player has a surface preference some it's clay, some it's grass, some it's hardcourt or indoors. The discrepancy is clear that the players that are more successful on fastcourts ie Hewitt, Roddick, Becker, McEnroe, Henman, Sampras and Federer to a lesser extent are nowhere near as scrutinised for their lack of claycourt results or efforts to improve their games on weaker surfaces as other players who are/have been mostly successful on clay.

foul_dwimmerlaik
04-08-2005, 06:36 AM
For me, "dirtballer" or "claycourt specialist" is not a derogatory term, but simply a way to describe a player whose best result come on clay. Probably I don't get the finer connotations of the language, but if someone calls, say Coria a dirtballer, I won't get ofended cos, well, he is. And I love him.

It's, of course, a very subjective matter, whom to apply the term to - one person wants to call it a player who excels on clay and on clay only (Gaudio), another can apply it to a player who has good results on other surfaces but still known primarily as a claycourter (Moya). I don't have a problem with that.

Neely
04-08-2005, 06:37 AM
But, Neely, would you say "just a" hardcourter?
For Ferrero? No, not at all, because "just a hardcourter/claycourter" would mean very strong on one surface, nothing special on others; at least for my understanding of English ;) It would be of such excluding manner that I was talking about and it would be not justified when talking about Ferrero's accomplishments.

Aphex
04-08-2005, 06:41 AM
Nice, Plastic Bertrand, quote me out of context and don't give me credit. It was meant as a joke originally, really. I prefer clay tennis. Ca don't plane pour moi :mad: :p

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 06:42 AM
Then again it's the English language world that are dominant in tennis and the fact that most of these areas are the ones where they don't understand, appreciate or willing to appreciate claycourt tennis, that leads to the negative connations that the guy can only play on clay therefore he is a lesser being, than someone able to serve huge and have an allegedly more spectacular game, even when they achieve success outside their domain.

Facts are there are different skills required for success on this surface as there are for grass. The players love the term as well and in a perfect world would be a term for bash/bang merchants that can only do well on faster surfaces that would have the same connations.

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 06:43 AM
Nice, Plastic Bertrand, quote me out of context and don't give me credit. It was meant as a joke originally, really. I prefer clay tennis. Ca don't plane pour moi :mad: :p

It's a great quote and I agree with it.

There should be the Martina Navratilova Carpet Tour.

Devotee
04-08-2005, 06:49 AM
I guess Nadal should throw away his stated goal of winning Wimbledon, since, after all, he's been winning clay court titles; therefore is a clay courter . . .
and to top it off, h e ' s f r o m S p a i n! :p

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 06:51 AM
I guess Nadal should throw away his stated goal of winning Wimbledon, since, after all, he's been winning clay court titles; therefore is a clay courter . . .
and to top it off, h e ' s f r o m S p a i n! :p

Why else do you think he wants to Wimbledon? If he did, it would be dismissed as a fluke.

WyveN
04-08-2005, 06:55 AM
Why else do you think he wants to Wimbledon?

I never realised the reason Wimbledon is valuable is to get rid of the clay courter tag.

Neely
04-08-2005, 06:56 AM
It's never applied in a positive manner and how could it be? Even for the ones that are claycourt specialists like the players I mentioned it's accurate in their case and that's it.
never applied in a positive manner? Well, you might already know that I disagree :p For me, if it is accurate and if suits the player's accomplishments or if it is used to describe a player who had his biggest succes on clay, it's positive. If it's used in excluding manner trying to say "this player never did much away from claycourts", it might be wrong when talking about certain players, such as Guga, Moya.... can't go too much into detail anymore because I already made my position clear in a few other posts.


Yes, every player has a surface preference some it's clay, some it's grass, some it's hardcourt or indoors. The discrepancy is clear that the players that are more successful on fastcourts ie Hewitt, Roddick, Becker, McEnroe, Henman, Sampras and Federer to a lesser extent are nowhere near as scrutinised for their lack of claycourt results or efforts to improve their games on weaker surfaces as other players who are/have been mostly successful on clay.
Relatively easy answer. No player who is good enough to get enough good results away from clay will have bigger troubles to hold his ranking. Clay is a unique surface (I'm trying to say: much more different than from hardcourt to indoor or to grass) BUT its importance isn't the biggest ("only" Slam on clay, "only" three TMS on clay, "only" a few weeks where only ATP tournaments on clay are held). The rest is all on non-clay. Therefore Roddick, Becker, Henman etc. don't get as scrutinised for their lack on clay. Because they only play 6 weeks on it. WOULD it be vice versa that we play 30 weeks on clay it WOULD -most likely- be different because they would (have) relatively suck(ed) in most events than.

Experimentee
04-08-2005, 06:56 AM
For me, "dirtballer" or "claycourt specialist" is not a derogatory term, but simply a way to describe a player whose best result come on clay. Probably I don't get the finer connotations of the language, but if someone calls, say Coria a dirtballer, I won't get ofended cos, well, he is. And I love him.

It's, of course, a very subjective matter, whom to apply the term to - one person wants to call it a player who excels on clay and on clay only (Gaudio), another can apply it to a player who has good results on other surfaces but still known primarily as a claycourter (Moya). I don't have a problem with that.

Yeah I agree with you as well. I know that in the media the term is sometimes used to imply that these players cant play on other surfaces, but for me I use to say that their best results come on clay. I dont find it derogatory when someone calls my faves claycourters when it is true that their results are noticeably better on clay than on other surfaces.
Sometimes there are players that only play well on grass eg Popp, and I call them grasscourters, and I'd call someone a hardcourter too if it was true that they excelled on hardcourts eg Lee Hyung Taik. But since clay is so different its a fact that there are a lot more players who excel on clay than players who excel only on other surfaces.

But it is funny when commentators call players clay courters when they clearly arent, like in 2001 Wimby they said one half was all clay courters so Arthurs has a chance to get to the final, and they mentioned Lapentti, Clement and Nalbandian :lol:

Devotee
04-08-2005, 06:56 AM
I never realised the reason Wimbledon is valuable is to get rid of the clay courter tag.

Sure, why do you think Sampras won Wimbledon so many times?

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 06:57 AM
I never realised the reason Wimbledon is valuable is to get rid of the clay courter tag.

It definitely helps, and I remember Nadal pretty saying something along those lines to show that Spanish players can play well of clay and that would be the ultimate way of doing it.

foul_dwimmerlaik
04-08-2005, 07:00 AM
It definitely helps, and I remember Nadal pretty saying something along those lines to show that Spanish players can play well of clay and that would be the ultimate way of doing it.
Didn't Ferrero say something like that was the reason why he wanted to win USO?

Neely
04-08-2005, 07:03 AM
Didn't Ferrero say something like that was the reason why he wanted to win USO?
That was a good try but at the end Roddick disposed of him in three straight sets and the cliché was perfectly set again: Spaniard winning French Open and the American is taking the US Open :p ;)

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 07:05 AM
never applied in a positive manner? Well, you might already know that I disagree :p For me, if it is accurate and if suits the player's accomplishments or if it is used to describe a player who had his biggest succes on clay, it's positive. If it's used in excluding manner trying to say "this player never did much away from claycourts", it might be wrong when talking about certain players, such as Guga, Moya.... can't go too much into detail anymore because I already made my position clear in a few other posts.

Someone has done well on other surfaces consistently shouldn't be a claycourt specialist, but we agree which players it's truly accurate for and which ones are not.

Relatively easy answer. No player who is good enough to get enough good results away from clay will have bigger troubles to hold his ranking. Clay is unique surface (much more different than from hardcourt to indoor or to grass) and its importance isn't the biggest ("only" Slam on clay, "only" three TMS on clay, "only" a few weeks where only ATP tournaments on clay are held). The rest is all on non-clay. Therefore Roddick, Becker, Henman etc. don't get as scrutinised for their lack on clay. Because they only play 6 weeks on it. WOULD it be vice versa that we play 30 weeks on clay it WOULD -most likely- be different because they would (have) relatively suck(ed) in most events than

They don't have to as the tour is favoured to fastcourt players, but they should get the same crap for not doing well on clay, but they don't. Then you hear people this guy has only kept his ranking high because he plays on clay.

I mean Muster did everything in 95 and only got to # 3 and that included winning a TMS indoors 2 clay TMS events a Slam and ISG event, so that shows the relative value of the clay tournaments is lower. Haas got to # 2 in the world without winning a title in the year he finished with that ranking.

The other one I love is when the American players avoid the clay TMS events, and whether I like them or not, their lack of presence does detract from the tournament, if it was the other way around, then it's ah these "dirtballers" are avoiding playing on faster surfaces.

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 07:07 AM
Didn't Ferrero say something like that was the reason why he wanted to win USO?

Ferrero has said hardcourt is his favourite surface and the US Open is the biggest hardcourt tournament of them all.

WyveN
04-08-2005, 07:14 AM
I mean Muster did everything in 95 and only got to # 3 and that included winning a TMS indoors 2 clay TMS events a Slam and ISG event, so that shows the relative value of the clay tournaments is lower.


Because that year Sampras and Agassi had better overall results.



The other one I love is when the American players avoid the clay TMS events, and whether I like them or not, their lack of presence does detract from the tournament, if it was the other way around, then it's ah these "dirtballers" are avoiding playing on faster surfaces.

Maybe when they avoided Wimbledon but I haven't heard that for a long time.

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 07:19 AM
Because that year Sampras and Agassi had better overall results.

I don't have a problem with the fact those 2 deserved to be ranked higher, it was more to point out that even Muster had that year and won nearly everything on clay he wouldn't be able to get # 1, yet he managed it the next year. Haas didn't do anything nearly as much and didn't win any titles and was able to use ability on faster surfaces to get to that ranking.

Maybe when they avoided Wimbledon but I haven't heard that for a long time.

Those players don't avoid those TMS events, but it's alright for some of the fastcourt players to avoid the clay ones.

Wimbledon is slower now, so they should all turn up regardless of the surface speed.

WyveN
04-08-2005, 08:19 AM
I don't have a problem with the fact those 2 deserved to be ranked higher, it was more to point out that even Muster had that year and won nearly everything on clay

So whats the solution, more clay tournaments? If anything there is a lot of needless ones already.
Krajicek had the best grass season in 1996 yet finished #9.
Someone can maintain a decent ranking if they are a above average clay court player, can't say the same about grass, look at Popp. Tennis isn't fair in allocation of surfaces and it never will be and its not just clay players being ripped off.



Those players don't avoid those TMS events, but it's alright for some of the fastcourt players to avoid the clay ones.


Alright according to who? The US media? Of course they are going to be biased towards their own players and their own tournaments. Somehow I don't think the Monte Carlo press will be praising Roddicks, Federers and Agassis decision to skip the local tournament the past few years.


Wimbledon is slower now, so they should all turn up regardless of the surface speed.

So when Wimbledon was faster, it was alright to skip it?

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 08:51 AM
So whats the solution, more clay tournaments? If anything there is a lot of needless ones already.
Krajicek had the best grass season in 1996 yet finished #9.
Someone can maintain a decent ranking if they are a above average clay court player, can't say the same about grass, look at Popp. Tennis isn't fair in allocation of surfaces and it never will be and its not just clay players being ripped off.

Actually the only solution would be less hardcourt and indoor tournaments, in fact there should be a shorter season overall and that would be better for the players and perhaps lessen the bias.


Alright according to who? The US media? Of course they are going to be biased towards their own players and their own tournaments. Somehow I don't think the Monte Carlo press will be praising Roddicks, Federers and Agassis decision to skip the local tournament the past few years.

It does devalue the tournament whether people like these players or not, but they don't get the same amount of criticism for ducking these tournaments on clay as the alleged claycourt specialists do when they don't turn up at the other events.

So when Wimbledon was faster, it was alright to skip it?

I wouldn't know I don't think it's good for anyone to skip a Slam, even ones that they don't like.

Back to the term itself claycourt specialist. Since a specialist is an individual who is trained in a specific brand of a profession. In this case tennis the profession, these guys excel on clay which is their specific brand.

If someone succeeds on a surface and not just 1 good tournament off the clay, like Ferrero, Moya, Kuerten, Corretja, Wilander, Coria for example then who could they be specialists, when they have gone outside their domain.

Rogiman
04-08-2005, 09:04 AM
The term itself is nearly always used in a condescending manner, even more condescending than most of my posts in this forum.

The truth I do agree with the original quotation that they should leave the tour and let all the others play their fastcourt games in peace, it would make things a lot more interesting.

Neely, you don't understand that the label is thrown about and has been thrown about players who have done well off clay. Nadal now, he is just a claycourter, even though he has made a TMS final on a hardcourt and did well at the AO.

Corretja and Guga got called the term even though they won the TMC indoors and in Corretja and Moya's case they won a TMS on hardcourt, yet the label sticks.

A guy like the future Wimbledon champion Oscar Hernandez, Jose Acasuso and Fernando Vicente could be called claycourt specialists and there wouldn't be too much objection, but when they called people like Corretja, Moya, Muster, Wilander, Kuerten and Ferrero the same, then it shows how much of a grasp that these people have.

George, all those players you've mentioned are/were excellent players, and therefore had very good results on surfaces other than clay, just like Sampras had much better results on clay than most of the players who grew up playing on the dirt simply because he was a great player, yet neither Sampras nor those dirtballers ever adjusted their games to the other surfaces - they played their own style no matter the surface and often turned out triumphant because of their superior talent.
Ferrero, for instance, made it to the final of the US Open playing exactly the same type of tennis he plays on dirt - hence 'dirtballer'.
Those who keep whining about the term should ask themselves whether it's them who underestimate clay-court tennis, and thus get offended by a term that only means: "whose best results have come on clay".

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 09:15 AM
George, all those players you've mentioned are/were excellent players, and therefore had very good results on surfaces other than clay, just like Sampras had much better results on clay than most of the players who grew up playing on the dirt simply because he was a great player, yet neither Sampras nor those dirtballers ever adjusted their games to the other surfaces - they played their own style no matter the surface and often turned out triumphant because of their superior talent.

A great player is a great player no matter and those examples I used with Becker, Edberg etc were examples of that. It's not a question of changing the game, it's finding the best way for them to adapt their game to that particular surface and that's the same challenge for all players on their weakest surfaces.

Wilander was a great player, but he will always suffer cause he never won Wimbledon, whereas Becker and Edberg don't get nailed as much for failing to win RG, the only reason Sampras gets that, as that is the main point that some people can use as an argument for him not being the greatest ever. He actually regrets not taking it more seriously in his career.

Ferrero, for instance, made it to the final of the US Open playing exactly the same type of tennis he plays on dirt - hence 'dirtballer'.
Those who keep whining about the term should ask themselves whether it's them who underestimate clay-court tennis, and thus get offended by a term that only means: "whose best results have come on clay".

How would I underestimate claycourt tennis? Considering it's a surface where it isn't serve dominated and there is a greater level of tactical awareness, endurance, better use of angles to open up the court. It seems some people still think it's just moonballs down the centre of the court and nobody trying anything when that is not the case.

A specialist by nature is someone limited to that field, when they go outside and succeed in that particular section then how are they are a specialist?

Rogiman
04-08-2005, 09:23 AM
How would I underestimate claycourt tennis? Considering it's a surface where it isn't serve dominated and there is a greater level of tactical awareness, endurance, better use of angles to open up the court. It seems some people still think it's just moonballs down the centre of the court and nobody trying anything when that is not the case.

A specialist by nature is someone limited to that field, when they go outside and succeed in that particular section then how are they are a specialist?

A specialist to me is someone whose speciality is as mentioned.
It doesn't mean he can't do other things, but he does his own thing best.
Nadal may become a multiple Slam winner, but the type of tennis he plays will always be the one he adapted growing up playing on clay, and his comfort zone will most possibly always be the clay.

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 09:29 AM
A specialist to me is someone whose speciality is as mentioned.
It doesn't mean he can't do other things, but he does his own thing best.
Nadal may become a multiple Slam winner, but the type of tennis he plays will always be the one he adapted growing up playing on clay, and his comfort zone will most possibly always be the clay.

The implication is there that they are limited especially when it comes to players playing on clay. As I said earlier every player has their best surface, but yet the ones that excel on faster surfaces don't have a term for that is used to describe that.

How are the guys that I mentioned before Guga etc claycourt specialists? I mean Wilander won Slams on 4 surfaces and he got that tag, yeah that makes a lot of sense.

Fastcourt monkey or indoor buffoon doesn't quite have the ring to it does it.

*Ljubica*
04-08-2005, 10:58 AM
The British media - who are generally catering for an audience who think tennis begins and ends with Wimbledon - are particularly bad with their "clay court" specialist tag - and they are definately using it in a derogatory and condescending manner.

I've lost count of the number of times they have called Nalbandian an "Argentine clay courter" - even though, as mentioned earlier in this thread, he is one South American player who actually dislikes clay!!! They also pin the tag on JCF, Guga, Coria and Nadal - and it doesn't matter how many hardcourt tourneys these guys do well in - the label will always be the same.

I once remember a match they were showing on the interractive service between Gaudio and Massu - they were so unpleasant and condescending afterwards about "dirtballers", and how they didn't expect anyone would have chosen to tune into that match because they were "so boring" ............. :devil:

It used to make me angry - now I just laugh at their ignorance.

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 11:37 AM
Well the Australians aren't any better, there is too much of the old Wimbledon is the best, stuff the rest when it comes to tennis. Hewitt has interestingly enough made a plea to the Tennis Australia to lay down more claycourts for the juniors and around.

It's the only Slam that isn't on free TV here. It's definitely a thing in the English language media, it's easy to stereotype and they do it well.

bad gambler
04-08-2005, 12:15 PM
Well the Australians aren't any better, there is too much of the old Wimbledon is the best, stuff the rest when it comes to tennis. Hewitt has interestingly enough made a plea to the Tennis Australia to lay down more claycourts for the juniors and around.

It's the only Slam that isn't on free TV here. It's definitely a thing in the English language media, it's easy to stereotype and they do it well.


Australia's mentality about clay will never change. I would say one of the reasons for the negative attitude is that all tennis fans and players have been brought up with how glorious the australian grass court history was with legends like rosewell, laver, hoad and newcombe to name a few. So with that comes the lack of demand so I can't really blame our free to air carriers turning a blind eye towards the French Open given the lack of public interest.

I'm not a fan of the clay but even I would say as a bare minimum someone should be showing every day's action at RG live, it is after all one of the foru most important tournaments on the tennis calendar.

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 12:24 PM
Australia's mentality about clay will never change. I would say one of the reasons for the negative attitude is that all tennis fans and players have been brought up with how glorious the australian grass court history was with legends like rosewell, laver, hoad and newcombe to name a few. So with that comes the lack of demand so I can't really blame our free to air carriers turning a blind eye towards the French Open given the lack of public interest.

I don't expect it to change I am not that idealistic. It would be like me expecting the US of all of a sudden embrace the real football code, it's not happening.

That being said Hewitt has raised some good points and there has been a stagnation of Aus talent coming through and most of them grow up on a surface that isn't in use on the real tour.

Have the history and don't forget, but move with the times and they haven't and apart from Hewitt, there is nothing coming through.

I'm not a fan of the clay but even I would say as a bare minimum someone should be showing every day's action at RG live, it is after all one of the foru most important tournaments on the tennis calendar.

The fact is when they see someone who is better on clay then they automatically think about their chances at Wimbledon. I remember when Verkerk went on the run and they were saying he'd be great at Wimbledon forgetting the fact he hates grass.

Billy Moonshine
04-08-2005, 04:00 PM
I love clay court tennis the most.
I love watching the great clay courters hit blistering groundstrokes, making beautiful drop shots, drop volleys, creating exciting points, fighting, sweating and sliding and in the dirt.
Nothing makes me happier than watching fantastic clay court tennis at RG.
And you would have to be really silly to pigeonhole players like Moya ( Oz open finalist), Corretja ( Masters cup champ), Kuerten ( Masters cup champ, year end no.1),as dirtballers.
And for the guys who do only play well on clay? What´s wrong with that anyway? Makes sense to me, devoting your talents to where they are suited the most.
I don´t think the term dirtballers is offensive. i think its a beautiful style and they should be proud.

tangerine_dream
04-08-2005, 05:09 PM
It's no more disrespectful than a crybaby whining about how grass is for cows.

Aphex
04-08-2005, 05:40 PM
moo

Federerhingis
04-08-2005, 06:36 PM
I see someone pointed out that Mr. Corretja beat Mr "grass" aka Sampras, however lets remember Mr. "grass" was if anything a shadow of himself when he lost that match. Its definitely an awesome feat by Corretja, very few can say they've beaten Mr. "GRASS" on grass, nonetheless had Mr Grass had the form he had in 2000 while he won his 7th grass trophie the result would have been very different.

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 06:37 PM
Ah this thread was going well with all the different viewpoints.

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 06:39 PM
I see someone pointed out that Mr. Corretja beat Mr "grass" aka Sampras, however lets remember Mr. "grass" was if anything a shadow of himself when he lost that match. Its definitely an awesome feat by Corretja, very few can say they've beaten Mr. "GRASS" on grass, nonetheless had Mr Grass had the form he had in 2000 while he won his 7th grass trophie the result would have been very different.

Sampras was leading 2 sets to love and lost against a guy who hardly played on grass, yet you are making poor excuses for Sampras.

What ifs, buts and maybe count for nowt.

Dirk
04-08-2005, 08:33 PM
GWH is right. Pete should have won that match but Alex just got better over the match and Pete was getting confounded.

Action Jackson
04-08-2005, 08:35 PM
GWH is right. Pete should have won that match but Alex just got better over the match and Pete was getting confounded.

See this actually proves a point, the only reason an alleged claycourt specialist won this grasscourt match was Sampras that was past his best. If that was Rafter or someone else who is not deemed a claycourt specialist, then it would be lauded as a great effort.

WyveN
04-09-2005, 01:29 AM
If that was Rafter or someone else who is not deemed a claycourt specialist, then it would be lauded as a great effort.

Do Woodbridge and Fromberg got much credit these days for beating Sampras on grass in 1989 and 1990?

Should Roddick get much credit for beating Coria on clay? No and rightly so because there were reasons for that win and Coria was far from his best.

Sampras lost to Bastl a few months later at Wimbledon which shows which way his grass court game was heading those days.

Dirk
04-09-2005, 01:53 AM
GWH I was not insulting Alex but Pete was up and very comfortable and nowbody expected Alex to come back and win it. Alex did get better over the course of the match and was able to confound Pete with his play and made Pete nervous. I was giving full credit to Alex but you're so damn defensive you didn't see that. Oh and how is your pal Plastic Beherend? I hope we can see him post again...after all this was his thread. ;) hint hint ;)

Devotee
04-09-2005, 02:40 AM
Oh and how is your pal Plastic Beherend? I hope we can see him post again...after all this was his thread. ;) hint hint ;)

Please don't tell me Plastic Beherend is yet another alter ego of GWH ??!!

Action Jackson
04-09-2005, 04:52 AM
GWH I was not insulting Alex but Pete was up and very comfortable and nowbody expected Alex to come back and win it. Alex did get better over the course of the match and was able to confound Pete with his play and made Pete nervous. I was giving full credit to Alex but you're so damn defensive you didn't see that. Oh and how is your pal Plastic Beherend? I hope we can see him post again...after all this was his thread. ;) hint hint ;)

I could tell that you weren't insulting Corretja, but that win from him usually gets laughed off as how pathetic Pete was on the day.

The other question I don't know the guy and have no reason to.

Action Jackson
04-09-2005, 04:57 AM
Do Woodbridge and Fromberg got much credit these days for beating Sampras on grass in 1989 and 1990?

Sampras wasn't a multiple Wimledon champion at that particular stage and grass was Woodbridge's best surface when he was playing singles, though the second part of the statement isn't relevant to Fromberg.

Should Roddick get much credit for beating Coria on clay? No and rightly so because there were reasons for that win and Coria was far from his best.

Sampras lost to Bastl a few months later at Wimbledon which shows which way his grass court game was heading those days.

Well if Roddick did it now, then it would get huge credit as it should. Even with Sampras heading south in his game, it was still a huge surprise that Corretja was able to beat him from 2 sets to love down.

One thing that Sampras doesn't get credit for is actually beating most of the top clay guys on their surface at least once.

SanTaureau Fan
04-09-2005, 06:36 AM
Yes, it's sometimes used a negative way - implying those players suck on non-clay surface, but considering it's been extensively pointed out every week since the last 2 years, I would think people would have build a bridge and get over it by now.

Plastic Bertrand
04-09-2005, 08:09 AM
Nice, Plastic Bertrand, quote me out of context and don't give me credit. It was meant as a joke originally, really. I prefer clay tennis. Ca don't plane pour moi :mad: :p

Merci and I have made the adjustment to the original post and your comment has been credited to the correct source.

Originally posted by Devotee
Please don't tell me Plastic Beherend is yet another alter ego of GWH ??!!


Do you work for the CIA? Considering I don't know the guy personally, just like anyone on here they are just posters.

This thread is actually talking about a specific aspect within tennis and for the most part it has been very good to read all the different perspectives. It would be good if you could contribute something to the debate.

Plastic Bertrand
04-09-2005, 08:19 AM
Yes, it's sometimes used a negative way - implying those players suck on non-clay surface, but considering it's been extensively pointed out every week since the last 2 years, I would think people would have build a bridge and get over it by now.

Until the English language media embrace the fact that tennis is a global game and not just dominated by the old order of nations, it probably won't change.

It's clear that there are players who fit the term claycourt specialist, but when it is used for players who aren't for example the earlier players mentioned in this thread who have been able to do well off the clay and are not specialists, yet
not respected for managing some top results away from clay that is when it's irritating, but at the same time it's funny that these attitudes are still around.

NATAS81
04-09-2005, 08:24 AM
The bottom line is it's worthless because clay yields unsuspecting results.

Plastic Bertrand
04-09-2005, 08:26 AM
The bottom line is it's worthless because clay yields unsuspecting results.

The term or the surface?

NATAS81
04-09-2005, 08:26 AM
The label and/or term. They both mean the same thing.

NATAS81
04-09-2005, 08:29 AM
And people wonder why guys with substantially better records than their opponents are rewarded with lower odds.

Plastic Bertrand
04-09-2005, 08:30 AM
The label and/or term. They both mean the same thing.

Wasn't sure what you meant, but I comprehend that now. There isn't the same pressure placed on fastcourt players to win Roland Garros well Federer and Sampras excepted because of their stature within the game as it is for the players who labelled as claycourt specialists to improve their results on other surfaces, which they should be attempting to do anyway.

NATAS81
04-09-2005, 08:30 AM
Sampras isn't an issue.

Action Jackson
04-09-2005, 11:50 AM
And people wonder why guys with substantially better records than their opponents are rewarded with lower odds.

What is your point with this statement?

WyveN
04-09-2005, 12:29 PM
Sampras wasn't a multiple Wimledon champion at that particular stage and grass was Woodbridge's best surface when he was playing singles, though the second part of the statement isn't relevant to Fromberg.


So what if Sampras wasn't a multiple Wimbledon champion at what particular stage?
Sampras was 2 years away from his first Wimbledon just as in 2002 he was 2 years past his last Wimbledon. The situation seems comparable to me.

Yes grass was Woodbridge's best surface but your claiming the only reason Corretja didnt get enough credit was because he was a clay courter.

All I am saying is Corretja (and Woodbridge and Fromberg) would get a lot more credit if he actually beat Sampras at Wimbledon during his prime years, just like Krajicek did.



Well if Roddick did it now, then it would get huge credit as it should. Even with Sampras heading south in his game, it was still a huge surprise that Corretja was able to beat him from 2 sets to love down.


Thats true, of course it was a surprise and a huge achievement by Corretja but I am not certain what sort of credit you expected him to get.



One thing that Sampras doesn't get credit for is actually beating most of the top clay guys on their surface at least once.

As you can see it is not only the clay courters that sometimes dont get the credit they deserve, Becker is another person whos clay court achievements are brushed aside because he failed to win a title.

WyveN
04-09-2005, 12:33 PM
Until the English language media embrace the fact that tennis is a global game and not just dominated by the old order of nations, it probably won't change.


The English media will always be biased towards English tournaments and English speaking players and I am sure they same can be said about the South American and European Media.

Action Jackson
04-09-2005, 12:39 PM
So what if Sampras wasn't a multiple Wimbledon champion at what particular stage?
Sampras was 2 years away from his first Wimbledon just as in 2002 he was 2 years past his last Wimbledon. The situation seems comparable to me.

So in your view Sampras was worse at the time Corretja beat him than before he became arguably the world greatest player? That was one reason Corretja never got the credit he deserved, the fact that also Corretja did it on his worst surface and it was in the US as well seems to be overlooked. I doubt if it would be the other way around if the situations were reversed.

All I am saying is Corretja (and Woodbridge and Fromberg) would get a lot more credit if he actually beat Sampras at Wimbledon during his prime years, just like Krajicek did.

Krajicek beat him everywhere, though to be fair Corretja would have to have played at Wimbledon during that time to be a chance.

As you can see it is not only the clay courters that sometimes dont get the credit they deserve, Becker is another person whos clay court achievements are brushed aside because he failed to win a title

Sampras and Becker both had bad losses on clay and as for Becker well the fact he didn't win a title didn't help him and he was alright on the surface. I don't think Becker was ridiculed to the level that players who play well on clay get when they lose a match to someone they shouldn't have on a faster surface. The ready made label he is just a claycourt specialist is always there to be used in this case.

The main gripe I do have is the whole crap when Muster got # 1 and many players, media and fans were complaining endlessly about it. He earned the points fairly, he did win a big tournament indoors and had improved his results on the hardcourts, but it's just he is a dirty claycourter who manipulated the system to suit him.

Action Jackson
04-09-2005, 12:48 PM
The English media will always be biased towards English tournaments and English speaking players and I am sure they same can be said about the South American and European Media.

We do know that there is always a particular bias, but it's the way that it's manifested is the problem for me. I read various sources in other languages, yes of course they show their players in the most favourable light (if possible). The other outlets tend to concentrate on the game itself and not care about being claycourt specialists etc.

They just report on the tennis, but at the same the European and South American media have a better understanding of the claycourt game than the dominant English-language media which are the ones who are more than likely to propogate the claycourt specialist stereotype.

Ferrero Forever
04-09-2005, 12:50 PM
In Australia the only reason my friends know who JC is, is because they know how crazy i am over him. Moya, Kuerten, and the other 'claycourters' are not heard of here.

Action Jackson
03-22-2007, 07:03 PM
In Australia the only reason my friends know who JC is, is because they know how crazy i am over him. Moya, Kuerten, and the other 'claycourters' are not heard of here.

Sadly, this is not surprising and it seems Mr. Disney has shown his appreciation for the claycourt game, with his latest proposals to the calendar.

As for the term itself, if it's used in its correct context, then it's not irritating, but we all know that never happens.

CyBorg
03-22-2007, 08:35 PM
I have much less respect for players like Roddick who ride their serves deep into grass/hard court tournaments.

Claycourters may win ugly but they earn every bit of what they get. The purest ones wear out at 24 anyway, so it's hard to really dislike them for it. Yet some find a way.

R.Federer
03-22-2007, 08:51 PM
I don't think of it as disrespectful and in commentary I have heard, it is more often to underscore prowess (and rearing) on clay, not limited means on other surfaces. I think it has also come to be any person from Spain or South Am. Even if they play better on another surface (admittedly few).

It is just one of the many things used to describe a player. Some would say that calling a player "American", that's also an insult, disrespectful even :p

Only kidding

(am I?)

Action Jackson
03-22-2007, 08:55 PM
I don't think of it as disrespectful and in commentary I have heard, it is more often to underscore prowess (and rearing) on clay, not limited means on other surfaces. I think it has also come to be any person from Spain or South Am. Even if they play better on another surface (admittedly few).

It is just one of the many things used to describe a player. Some would say that calling a player "American", that's also an insult, disrespectful even :p

Only kidding

(am I?)

The term specialist is a limiting one, and yes it's used in a sneering manner, something I should know about. Yes, claycourt specialist, limited to be only playing well on clay and forgetting results on other surfaces and there are some good responses in this thread arguing both points of view.

R.Federer
03-22-2007, 09:06 PM
The term specialist is a limiting one
All court specialist.

No limitations there. :rocker:

And yes it's used in a sneering manner, something I should know about. Yes, claycourt specialist, limited to be only playing well on clay and forgetting results on other surfaces and there are some good responses in this thread arguing both points of view.

Well, I wrote that I do not think of it as disrespectful, not that I use it much anyway. But certainly in the commentary I have heard nothing sticks out as being disparaging although I can see that it could be used as such. Eg when Kuerten reached the TMS hardcourt finals.

But your point- is it that if there is truly a player who has good results only on clay and extremely poor results off it, the tag is still inappropriate? I guess if we had enough people who used hardcourt specialist and grasscourt specialist and rebound specialist, the claycourt tag would stick out a little less.

jazar
03-22-2007, 09:11 PM
nowadays almost everyone can play on almost every surface so the term isnt really that applicable anymore

CyBorg
03-22-2007, 09:11 PM
All court specialist.

No limitations there. :rocker:

But he's also a person... with feelings.

How disrespectful.:p

(unless he's a robot or an alien like David Bowie... does David Bowie have feelings?)

FluffyYellowBall
03-22-2007, 09:14 PM
If playing on clay was so easy then y do the "noble hard court specialists" have a tough time beating them?

R.Federer
03-22-2007, 09:20 PM
But he's also a person... with feelings.

How disrespectful.:p

(unless he's a robot or an alien like David Bowie... does David Bowie have feelings?)

If David Bowie had feelings he would not have named his daughter Zowie.
Zowie Bowie.

CyBorg
03-22-2007, 09:29 PM
If David Bowie had feelings he would not have named his daughter Zowie.
Zowie Bowie.

I wonder if she's friends with Moon Unit Zappa!

Kitty de Sade
03-22-2007, 09:33 PM
If David Bowie had feelings he would not have named his daughter Zowie.
Zowie Bowie.

David Bowie wasn't that cruel, just kind of....:p

David Bowie and his first wife, Angela, had a son (born on 30 May 1971) whom they named Zowie (Zowie later preferred to be known as Joe/Joey, although now he has reverted to his legal birth name - "Duncan Zowie Heywood Jones").

R.Federer
03-22-2007, 09:34 PM
I wonder if she's friends with Moon Unit Zappa!

Or Moxie CrimeFighter Gillette? Or Apple Martin, Peaches Geldof or Pilot Inspektor (forgot the dad's name)?

We have successfully hijacked this thread (we were unsuccessful in the previous one).

R.Federer
03-22-2007, 09:36 PM
David Bowie wasn't that cruel, just kind of....:p

David Bowie and his first wife, Angela, had a son (born on 30 May 1971) whom they named Zowie (Zowie later preferred to be known as Joe/Joey, although now he has reverted to his legal birth name - "Duncan Zowie Heywood Jones").

Crikes. That's a name for their SON?

CyBorg
03-22-2007, 09:39 PM
David Bowie wasn't that cruel, just kind of....:p

David Bowie and his first wife, Angela, had a son (born on 30 May 1971) whom they named Zowie (Zowie later preferred to be known as Joe/Joey, although now he has reverted to his legal birth name - "Duncan Zowie Heywood Jones").

Check that, Zowie and Moon Unit would make a lovely couple.

Castafiore
03-22-2007, 10:46 PM
All court specialist.

No limitations there. :rocker:


You're probably only kidding but there's no such thing as an all court specialist or else it's a linguistic error.

You're either a generalist or you specialise in a certain domain but an all area specialist is nonsense.

GWH is right. The term "specialist" is a limiting one.

R.Federer
03-22-2007, 10:54 PM
You're probably only kidding but there's no such thing as an all court specialist or else it's a linguistic error.

I know

Merton
03-22-2007, 10:54 PM
This is easy to see, take the top-100 and examine which players get more than, say, 90% of their points on clay. If you find any, go back in time to see if this is a persistent pattern. I might do it in a day that I am bored.

Castafiore
03-22-2007, 10:59 PM
I know
Good for you but without throwing in another attempt to divert attention: you've got to admit that when people call certain players clay court specialists, it's a limiting term, right?
Maybe they don't do that on purpose or they don't mean it in a condescending way but it happens.
Why do they only add the word "specialist" to clay courters, by the way? Why don't I ever hear/read that term attached to carpet specialists, grass specialists for example?

R.Federer
03-22-2007, 11:07 PM
Good for you but without throwing in another attempt to divert attention: you've got to admit that when people call certain players clay court specialists, it's a limiting term, right?
Maybe they don't do that on purpose or they don't mean it in a condescending way but it happens.
Why do they only add the word "specialist" to clay courters, by the way? Why don't I ever hear/read that term attached to carpet specialists, grass specialists for example?

I think you are writing what I posted in response to the poster GeorgeWHitler as well.

But your point- is it that if there is truly a player who has good results only on clay and extremely poor results off it, the tag is still inappropriate? I guess if we had enough people who used hardcourt specialist and grasscourt specialist and rebound specialist, the claycourt tag would stick out a little less.

I can only say this much -- which is that if I have used the term, maybe just in my mind, I certainly don't have any disparaging notion in my mind. In commentary, it has seemed to me that this is used loosely, and interchangeably with players who have been raised on clay and/or are of Spanish or South Am. origin.

So, as I asked in my previous post, if there is a player who is truly only shown good results on clay and no special results elsewhere, does the tag have negative connotation there?

Btw, if there were enough grass court tournaments where some players could come out and show that they were specialists, that term would exist. If there were hard court players whose results simply did not translate on rebound or grass, you'd see that term used more. Popp is really the only person who I think of as a grass court specialist.

amierin
03-22-2007, 11:08 PM
Good for you but without throwing in another attempt to divert attention: you've got to admit that when people call certain players clay court specialists, it's a limiting term, right?
Maybe they don't do that on purpose or they don't mean it in a condescending way but it happens.
Why do they only add the word "specialist" to clay courters, by the way? Why don't I ever hear/read that term attached to carpet specialists, grass specialists for example?

Try this blog that uses the term hard court specialists in comments about the player's meeting.

www.wwwsavannahsworld.blogspot.com

R.Federer
03-22-2007, 11:15 PM
Try this blog that uses the term hard court specialists in comments about the player's meeting.

www.wwwsavannahsworld.blogspot.com

You will find odd, isolated uses like this. But it is far from mainstream.

Castafiore
03-22-2007, 11:19 PM
So, as I asked in my previous post, if there is a player who is truly only shown good results on clay and no special results elsewhere, does the tag have negative connotation there?
That's just it.

If the term is used correctly like for example in your quote above: no!
But it often isn't used correctly, is it?

I mean, some of the players who now get labelled "clay court specialists" actually have some pretty good results on other courts.

R.Federer
03-22-2007, 11:24 PM
That's just it.

If the term is used correctly like for example in your quote above: no!
But it often isn't used correctly, is it?

I mean, some of the players who now get labelled "clay court specialists" actually have some pretty good results on other courts.

Are you basically saying Nadal? I'm not sure who you have in mind. For Nadal, I don't think this is used at all, since mid/late 2005. Prior to that, if it was I think it was a legitimate use (without derogatory connotation). Do you think that is correct (if it was)?

Who do you have in mind that is described as a dirtballer incorrectly? I truly don't hear it so much on commentary, but I imagine it's used rightly or wrongly on Puerta, Coria, Robredo, Costa, Bruguera (correctly), Roddick, okay maybe not Roddick despite superb achievements in Houston :)

Castafiore
03-22-2007, 11:43 PM
No.
I've seen the term used on Nadal very recently actually (and not just once or twice but more often than that) but I didn't really have Nadal in mind but also players like Ferrer or Robredo for example (just to name these two). Granted, it's in fashion to be dismissive of Robredo on MTF but he's gotten some very good results on other surfaces. You could argue: he has his best results on clay so it's his speciality. That doesn't exclude the recognition that he can play well elsewhere but I still feel that the term is used incorrectly often.

Conita
03-22-2007, 11:54 PM
well i haven't really seen many people from either spain or south america reply to this to give a wider view of the issue.
personally i find the term dirtballer slightly offensive. I also think players that come from south america and spain have a harder time trying to gain credibilty from the media in other surfaces regarldless of how they actually do unless they obtain a very good result outside the clay courts and sometimes not even that is enough.
which is why i think those terms offend the players cause it's almost undermining their capacities.

Action Jackson
03-23-2007, 10:14 AM
That's just it.

If the term is used correctly like for example in your quote above: no!
But it often isn't used correctly, is it?

I mean, some of the players who now get labelled "clay court specialists" actually have some pretty good results on other courts.

Gaudio could be a considered a claycourt specialist with his lack of results on other surfaces and that wouldn't be so problematic.

But Muster, yes the guy who TMS events on carpet and hardcourts and made 2 SF at the AO was called a claycourt specialist, forgetting that he changed his game towards the end of his career and it stuffed him for clay.

Nadal, Ferrero, Bruguera (he wasn't), Wilander, Robredo, Corretja, Moya, Chela, Nalbandian and Guga have been called claycourt specialists at various times and none of them fit the bill.

It's Ok, to do well on faster surfaces, but not on slower ones.

FanofFederer
03-23-2007, 10:18 AM
Many of the players who play well on clay do not deserve respect, I am sorry. Call them what you like. Why should we respect trash, much of which are dopers?

Conita
03-23-2007, 10:35 AM
Many of the players who play well on clay do not deserve respect, I am sorry. Call them what you like. Why should we respect trash, much of which are dopers?

oh here we go...
yeah thats right all clay court players are dopers
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

with an argument like that how can anyone disagree..........


FanofFedererc :wavey: bye bye!

Dougie
03-23-2007, 12:58 PM
Many of the players who play well on clay do not deserve respect, I am sorry. Call them what you like. Why should we respect trash, much of which are dopers?

That has got to be the most stupid comment of the week. Why do you combine "clay" with "trash"? Clay is in no way inferior to any other surface. As for dopers...there is a thread for that discussion, no need to bring it up again.

Langers
03-23-2007, 12:59 PM
Gustavo Kuerten is a claycourt specialist. It's not disrespectful, just the truth.

TennisShoulder
11-02-2007, 03:51 AM
Gustavo Kuerten is a claycourt specialist. It's not disrespectful, just the truth.

Both terms are disrespectful when you apply them to a great champion, who won multiple titles on both surfaces - but just happened to have a favourite surface.

Personally, I prefer the term 'dirtballer' to 'clay court specialist' because it sounds less patronising.

Kolya
11-02-2007, 03:52 AM
Its not disrespectful.

+alonso
11-02-2007, 04:16 AM
Depends on the context, but I don't think so. :p
but there's a question..
Why there's not a term to refer to hard court players also?

cardio
11-03-2007, 01:56 PM
Wilander was a great player, but he will always suffer cause he never won Wimbledon, whereas Becker and Edberg don't get nailed as much for failing to win RG, the only reason Sampras gets that, as that is the main point that some people can use as an argument for him not being the greatest ever. He actually regrets not taking it more seriously in his career.

Yes, people often forget, (especially younger tennis fans), that Wilander actually won GS titles on grass,in AO 1983 ( beating McEnroe in a SF and Lendl in the final) and in AO 1984 ( beating Edberg in a QF and Curren in the final). So he was not hopeless on grass, but only thing most of people remember is : he never won Wimbledon.