Gaudio: the optional king of 2005 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Gaudio: the optional king of 2005

Sjengster
07-31-2005, 02:35 PM
His best five performances:

W Vina del Mar
W Buenos Aires
W Estoril
W Gstaad
W Kitzbuhel

As mentioned by jazz girl in George's thread, he has the third most titles this year after Federer and Nadal, not bad for a one-Slam wonder. He said his aim is to qualify for the TMC again this year, well, he's done literally everything he can on his favourite surface; now it's time to transfer some of those good results to hardcourt, he needs to win consecutive matches at a few big events to stand a chance of reaching Shanghai.

He has lost just twice before the final of an optional clay event since Estoril last year, and one of those was a retirement; the only man to beat him in a completed match was Ferrero in Barcelona this year. His 2005 results certainly put a couple of previous optional kings in the shade...

2004: Dominik Hrbaty (won Adelaide, Auckland, Marseille; runner-up in Casablanca)
2003: Roger Federer (won Marseille, Dubai, Munich, Halle, Vienna; runner-up in Gstaad)
2002: Younes El Aynaoui (won Doha, Casablanca, Munich; runner-up in Bastad)

Action Jackson
07-31-2005, 02:41 PM
Yes, he has shown his strength in the optionals, at the same time he could only get so many points from them, but now he doesn't have many points to defend at all for the rest of the season.

Nadal is on par with the optionals, except he decided to win 3 of the big clay events, which of course should overshadow the optionals.

Sjengster
07-31-2005, 02:44 PM
Yes, I thought Nadal's bigger titles would deny him the optional crown for 2005. I suppose Federer is the same considering he won Wimbledon back in 2003, but he didn't win one regular TMS that year and five of his seven titles were in optional events.

Action Jackson
07-31-2005, 02:46 PM
Gaudio is definitely the optional master of 2005.

RogiFan88
07-31-2005, 03:09 PM
...and the official KING OF THE MOUNTAINS, like my dear almost departed Corretja... who better to continue the tradition? ;)

Carito_90
07-31-2005, 05:03 PM
Yes, but it's not just about the quantity, but also about the quality (of the tourneys) ;)

Action Jackson
07-31-2005, 05:05 PM
Yes, but it's not just about the quantity, but also about the quality (of the tourneys) ;)

Spoken by a fan of a player who is a guru in winning MM titles and both have won exactly the same amount of Slams. :)

alfonsojose
07-31-2005, 05:09 PM
Optional king .. of clay :)

CooCooCachoo
07-31-2005, 06:33 PM
Spoken by a fan of a player who is a guru in winning MM titles and both have won exactly the same amount of Slams. :)

Even you can't deny that Roddick's results at big events are considerably better than Gaudío's.

revolution
07-31-2005, 07:06 PM
Even you can't deny that Roddick's results at big events are considerably better than Gaudío's.

Spot on. Roddick has titles on clay, grass, hard and indoors, whereas Gaudio is a one-surface wonder.

willie
07-31-2005, 07:06 PM
i dont think so......
in the important clay tournments he didnt reach a semifinals this year, lost in quarterfinals or before in all, hamburg, rome, monte-carlo and roland garros...

Sjengster
07-31-2005, 07:46 PM
Yes, but it's not just about the quantity, but also about the quality (of the tourneys) ;)

Nope, it is about the quantity - hence the title, optional king. If it were just king in general, then obviously Federer would have claimed the crown last year and probably this year too.

Sjengster
07-31-2005, 07:49 PM
i dont think so......
in the important clay tournments he didnt reach a semifinals this year, lost in quarterfinals or before in all, hamburg, rome, monte-carlo and roland garros...

Which is why I said optional king, not "important" king. ;) Besides, although it's true he hasn't made the quarters of a big event anywhere this year, there's no point in criticising Gaudio for not winning a major title considering that there has been exactly one winner of a required event this year not called Federer or Nadal (and that was Safin at the AO). Everyone is playing catch-up to those two, Gaudio just happens to lead the rest of the field in winning Mickey Mouse tournaments. At least he's won a major title of some kind in the last two years, something that Hewitt for instance has not.

RogiFan88
07-31-2005, 08:02 PM
Well said, Sjengst! ;)

I remember that in Gstaad Alex and Gaston milked the cow...

Some players w KILL for a title, Ferrero, for example.

Pea
07-31-2005, 08:05 PM
...and the official KING OF THE MOUNTAINS, like my dear almost departed Corretja... who better to continue the tradition? ;)

Exactly.;)

Dirk
07-31-2005, 08:53 PM
I hope Gaudio can make a good showing at the hard court masters. If he can make the 2nd week of the USO then he has a great chance of making the Cup.

Sjengster
07-31-2005, 09:04 PM
I'm glad to hear that he has a specific goal in mind for his career, post-RG, and he doesn't just want to play out his remaining years now that he's achieved his dream. Mind you, the second week of the US Open is a rather more fanciful dream that's going to take some doing. The bottom line is, he has to put together back-to-back matches in the North American hardcourt summer, something he's only achieved a couple of times, I think (USO 02 and Cincy 03, where he beat Ferrero in a tough three-setter).

sol
07-31-2005, 11:30 PM
Go Gaston :rocker2: 5 of his 8 titles this year .... so good! :D

Action Jackson
08-01-2005, 06:21 AM
Even you can't deny that Roddick's results at big events are considerably better than Gaudío's.

When would I deny that? I haven't, but the facts are it is the number of Slams as to what truly count, whether this fair or not.

Carito_90
08-01-2005, 03:50 PM
Spoken by a fan of a player who is a guru in winning MM titles and both have won exactly the same amount of Slams. :)

Yes, but when did I claim Roddick was the "optional King" or whatever?

Besides, I will not argue with the fact Andy's year has been, well, shit. But I would very much like to count the TMS won by each and the GS finals and results. You can't compare.

its.like.that
08-01-2005, 03:59 PM
Gaudio is set to have a real crack at Wimbledon 2006

Action Jackson
08-02-2005, 08:10 AM
Yes, but when did I claim Roddick was the "optional King" or whatever?

Well considering he was won plenty of optional events in the past and the Houston is a perfect example of a MM optional, considering Buenos Aires and Kitz were stronger events than that isn't important. The thread title says optional master of 2005 and that is the case for Gaudio, the difference not acknowledging it when it comes to Roddick is an example of an outstanding optional player who wins most of his tournaments in his backyard. They both have done the same thing in regards to playing to their respective strengths.

Besides, I will not argue with the fact Andy's year has been, well, shit. But I would very much like to count the TMS won by each and the GS finals and results. You can't compare.

It's the Slams and the TMC are what count,whether people like or not and they are exactly the same in that count, it's not even debatable who is a better player is.

Leo
08-02-2005, 06:42 PM
Some players w KILL for a title, Ferrero, for example.

Nah, Ferrero's not even playing that many events. Andreev plays pretty much every week, on the other hand. :rolleyes:

Bravo, Gaston. Now where were your mental strength and confidence in the clay court events that actually mattered in 2005?

revolution
08-02-2005, 06:45 PM
Nah, Ferrero's not even playing that many events. Andreev plays pretty much every week, on the other hand. :rolleyes:

Bravo, Gaston. Now where were your mental strength and confidence in the clay court events that actually mattered in 2005?


Totally spot on. He's played on clay only all year and even then won only the optionals, plus he hasn't played on any other surface apart from at the beginning of the year, that's why I think he is undeserving of a TMC spot.

Action Jackson
08-02-2005, 06:46 PM
Totally spot on. He's played on clay only all year and even then won only the optionals, plus he hasn't played on any other surface apart from at the beginning of the year, that's why I think he is undeserving of a TMC spot.

It's Ok for other players to play just as much as on hardcourt. You do know that 10 of the 14 major events are on fast surfaces.

If Gaudio doesn't do well in at least 2 of those, then he won't make it in.

Action Jackson
08-02-2005, 06:47 PM
Bravo, Gaston. Now where were your mental strength and confidence in the clay court events that actually mattered in 2005?

Not good enough when it counted.

David Kenzie
08-02-2005, 06:51 PM
Nah, Ferrero's not even playing that many events. Andreev plays pretty much every week, on the other hand. :rolleyes:

I hadn't realized that Igor had played 23 tounaments in 2005 that's impressive!!!

revolution
08-02-2005, 07:17 PM
It's Ok for other players to play just as much as on hardcourt. You do know that 10 of the 14 major events are on fast surfaces.

If Gaudio doesn't do well in at least 2 of those, then he won't make it in.

Yes they are, but there's more than one kind of fast surface, and isn't hard courts considered as medium?

Plus Roddick won a clay title so he deserves to make the cut having won titles on all surfaces.

Gonzalez reached the Wimbledon quarters (superb achievement), and that coupled with Auckland (hard) and Amersfoort (clay) mean he deserves it.

Nadal, although his titles have all been clay this year, he's won a GS and reached a TMS final on HC so he would also warrant one.

Davydenko reached the AO quarters and FO semis, and won a title, thats consistent stuff, and might have gone far at Wimby had his wrist not deserted him when he was leading Bjorkman, so I think he should go in.

Whereas Gaudio has played on one surface and won five smaller titles, I wouldn't call them Mickey Mouse events though, as any ATP main tour event win is worthy. If he was to win the USO say, then of course he would deserve his place. But the fact he has played only on clay and none of his titles are a TMS or GS, he doesn't deserve a place IMO.

Neely
08-02-2005, 08:15 PM
The key point is that somebody can go to the Masters Cup by only excelling on clay almost the whole year (if you leave out these few hardcourt matches, Gaudio hardly played on anything else than clay) or by playing on hardcourts, while a grass specialist would need to win Wimbledon in order to qualify as there are not enough events on grass to make top 10 or top 8 by 80 or 90% of points coming from grass tourneys.

At the end of the season Gaudio's clay results and a few 2nd/3rd rounds in hardcourt, indoor events and the third round from AO will be good enough for him.

But in contrary, it won't be good enough for somebody who does the same by only playing on grass and being only successful on this surface because it only has one big event with Wimbledon, no Masters Series event and not so many optionals, no ISG...

revolution
08-02-2005, 08:18 PM
The key point is that somebody can go to the Masters Cup by only excelling on clay almost the whole year (if you leave out these few hardcourt matches, Gaudio hardly played on anything else than clay) or by playing on hardcourts, while a grass specialist would need to win Wimbledon in order to qualify as there are not enough events on grass to make top 10 or top 8 by 80 or 90% of points coming from grass tourneys.

At the end of the season Gaudio's clay results and a few 2nd/3rd rounds in hardcourt, indoor events and the third round from AO will be good enough for him.

But it won't be good enough for somebody who does the same by only playing on grass and being only successful on this surface because it only has one big event with Wimbledon, no Masters Series event and not so many optionals, no ISG...

:worship: :worship: :worship:

David Kenzie
08-02-2005, 08:19 PM
But do grass-only specialists exist ? I don't think so. Players who are good on grass aren't usually crap on hardcourts. Maybe Karlovic and Popp are the exception ?

Castafiore
08-02-2005, 08:26 PM
I was about to ask the same question, Gouzo.

Usually, it's easier for a "grass specialist" to adapt to another faster surface such as hardcourt, no? As a result, there aren't many grass only specialists, I should think.

It's a bigger step to go from a faster court to clay or vice versa to make the transition from clay to hardcourt for example.

Neely
08-02-2005, 08:30 PM
It's the Slams and the TMC are what count,whether people like or not and they are exactly the same in that count, it's not even debatable who is a better player is.
Since when are good Grand Slam results making finals, semis, quarters or good results at Masters worth nothing?

Neely
08-02-2005, 08:32 PM
But do grass-only specialists exist ? I don't think so. Players who are good on grass aren't usually crap on hardcourts. Maybe Karlovic and Popp are the exception ?
Sure, they hardly exist because such a breed of player would be always threatened by extinction as they couldn't survive enough in high rankings as there are not enough grass events.

But guess what would happen if the grass season would be equally long like the hardcourt or clay season?

Castafiore
08-02-2005, 08:39 PM
No offence, Neely :) but you mentionned it as a 'key point' but it's hardly a 'key point' if the grass-only specialists hardly exist IMO.

But guess what would happen if the grass season would be equally long like the hardcourt or clay season?
The clay players would really be at a disadvantage?
I mean, like has been said before: there hardly are grass-only specialist because most of the players who prefer that surface can adapt easily enough to hardcourt whereas it's much more difficult to go from hardcourt to clay and vice versa.

Sjengster
08-02-2005, 08:41 PM
The key point is that somebody can go to the Masters Cup by only excelling on clay almost the whole year (if you leave out these few hardcourt matches, Gaudio hardly played on anything else than clay) or by playing on hardcourts, while a grass specialist would need to win Wimbledon in order to qualify as there are not enough events on grass to make top 10 or top 8 by 80 or 90% of points coming from grass tourneys.

At the end of the season Gaudio's clay results and a few 2nd/3rd rounds in hardcourt, indoor events and the third round from AO will be good enough for him.

But in contrary, it won't be good enough for somebody who does the same by only playing on grass and being only successful on this surface because it only has one big event with Wimbledon, no Masters Series event and not so many optionals, no ISG...

Rubbish. Yes, you can make it if you have a clay season as great as Nadal's, but Gaudio's is hardly in the same league. Do you seriously think that his clay performances alone will be enough to get him into the TMC? Other players who are better on faster surfaces and haven't been doing much for the last few months, Wimbledon aside, will start to move up on him and pass him in the Race during the next few events. He needs to have hardcourt results at least one level better than he's achieved in the past, like making a QF in one of the four remaining TMS events or reaching the second week of the US Open. So as yet, there's no need to panic worrying that an undeserving claycourt grinder could end up polluting the TMC at the end of this year with his presence.

I'm not going to make excuses for Gaudio's performances in the big clay events, his losses were a mixture of pathetic tanks and horrendous chokes, Ferrer at RG being the absolute worst example. The poor showings in the TMS events were what disappointed me most, he only needs to win one of them to round out an almost perfect career on clay. But his victories in the optional events have only put him in a good position to qualify for the TMC, not gotten him over the line. Improved hardcourt results are needed for that, and it's not like he's got the chance to play on any more clay for the rest of the year, has he?

I agree with you about a grass specialist being unable to rack up a significant amount of points on their favourite surface, and that's yet another reason why the calendar needs reforming, to widen the gap between RG and Wimbledon and make the latter part of a longer season that actually has its own merit in every player's eyes as a fully-fledged surface (including its own TMS event, of course). But frankly, there are so few grass specialists around that it doesn't make much difference, most of 'em are too poor a quality of player on any surface to stand a chance of making the TMC even if they could play more tournaments on grass. Grass has become so much like a hardcourt, that by and large the same skills are required to excel on both surfaces. Roddick has made two Wimbledon finals essentially by playing his hardcourt game, and Federer too is no longer the out-and-out netrusher that he was in 2003.

gooner88
08-02-2005, 08:42 PM
If Gaudio gets enough points to make Shanghai he deserves it, regardless of how he accumulates his points.
If he makes Shanghai I hope he does alot better. Last year at Houston he was outclassed in all his matches and was the 'whipping boy' of his group.

Neely
08-02-2005, 08:44 PM
No offence, Neely :) but you mentionned it as a 'key point' but it's hardly a 'key point' if the grass-only specialists hardly exist IMO.
How couldn't it be a point?

I'm saying: You can much more easily make the TMC by only excelling on clay and on hardcourt than by doing the same on grass which would not be enough as there are not enough big events such as Masters, ISGs...

Sjengster
08-02-2005, 08:49 PM
One thing I would say about a grass court specialist like Karlovic, more grass tournaments would probably make him a regular fixture in the Top 50, but they wouldn't be enough to make him a candidate for TMC qualifying. He made that final in Queens this year, was drawn to play Roddick in the second round of Wimbledon, everyone hypes him up as a dangerous test and a potential dark horse in the draw if he causes another upset... and then he loses in the first round (albeit to a player who had recently beaten him on grass) because his opponent is good enough to break serve once in the deciding set and he can only break once in heaven alone knows how many return games.

Neely
08-02-2005, 08:54 PM
Rubbish. Yes, you can make it if you have a clay season as great as Nadal's, but Gaudio's is hardly in the same league. Do you seriously think that his clay performances alone will be enough to get him into the TMC?
Not ALONE (did I say that?), but it will make things much easier and he doesn't need to do so much for the rest of the season on the other remaining surfaces (same true for hardcourt, as I said). And that's again my point: for somebody who is loving grass and being successful on this underground as much as Gaudio on clay, well, this somebody would roughly need about 10 other strong results from other events to qualify.

But his victories in the optional events have only put him in a good position to qualify for the TMC, not gotten him over the line.
True, again I agree. Like the things I said above.


If Gaudio gets enough points to make Shanghai he deserves it, regardless of how he accumulates his points.
Sure, true. The one who makes and who collects his points deserves it if the system allows him to do so.

Neely
08-02-2005, 08:59 PM
One thing I would say about a grass court specialist like Karlovic, more grass tournaments would probably make him a regular fixture in the Top 50, but they wouldn't be enough to make him a candidate for TMC qualifying. He made that final in Queens this year, was drawn to play Roddick in the second round of Wimbledon, everyone hypes him up as a dangerous test and a potential dark horse in the draw if he causes another upset... and then he loses in the first round (albeit to a player who had recently beaten him on grass) because his opponent is good enough to break serve once in the deciding set and he can only break once in heaven alone knows how many return games.
And what's your point? That one break in the deciding set was enough to cause an upset? Or that a grasscourt specialist is in danger of losing early at Wimbledon, the same like it can happen on other surfaces too?

Sjengster, Castafiore and everbody else who has this point: I agree with you that these "successful grasscourt-only specialists" don't exist enough, but how could one special breed of player exist if you dispossess them their fundament of living because the grass season is simply not long enough as of today, if there is not one single Masters on the surface, if there are not enough events...

Castafiore
08-02-2005, 09:04 PM
How couldn't it be a point?
:scratch: Because you called it a 'key point'?
The key point is that somebody can go to the Masters Cup by only excelling on clay almost the whole year (if you leave out these few hardcourt matches, Gaudio hardly played on anything else than clay) or by playing on hardcourts, while a grass specialist would need to win Wimbledon in order to qualify as there are not enough events on grass to make top 10 or top 8 by 80 or 90% of points coming from grass tourneys.
But...maybe I misunderstood you.
Weren't you making the point that a clay court specialist has plenty of opportunities to get a good ranking and the same goes for a hardcourt specialist but a grass specialist does not have that opportunity?
Well, there aren't many grass-only specialists just because the transition to hardcourt is feasible for most of them so they don't really have a disadvantage here in my opinion.

Neely
08-02-2005, 09:08 PM
But...maybe I misunderstood you.
Weren't you making the point that a clay court specialist has plenty of opportunities to get a good ranking and the same goes for a hardcourt specialist but a grass specialist does not have that opportunity?
Yes, I think there was a misunderstanding because what you're saying here is going in this direction that I hinted at.

Well, there aren't many grass-only specialists just because the transition to hardcourt is feasible for most of them so they don't really have a disadvantage here in my opinion.
If you see it that way, okay.
For me grass is still a bit more unique...

Sjengster
08-02-2005, 09:11 PM
My point is that Karlovic, no matter how many tournaments he gets to play on grass, is fundamentally not good enough as a player to challenge for a TMC place. If there were more grass tournaments he would have more significant results, some quarters and semis, but also some of the same early losses he has to players who can serve as effectively as him but know how to make returns at crucial moments.

The chances are that somebody who is as successful on grass as Gaudio is on clay this year, ie winning plenty of optional events, would be good enough on hardcourts that they could earn their points there, not depend for their existence on more grass tournaments. I couldn't see Karlovic or Popp winning five optional titles in one year if four months of the regular season was grass, even though they do have one tour final each on the surface. Which of the players in the 4th round of this year's Wimbledon were grass specialists? Ancic and Gasquet are young players who won their first career titles the week before on grass, but both have shown their proficiency and potential on other surfaces, indeed Gasquet was virtually a claycourt specialist before Nottingham.

Sjengster
08-02-2005, 09:17 PM
The fact is, when grass becomes a specialised surface again with its own distinct playing style and its unique set of skills, then we may see more grass specialists emerging. But as long as it plays like an organic hardcourt then there won't be any truly successful grasscourt specialists, which is a pity I agree since the old-fashioned style is certainly great to watch when you have the right combination of players.

revolution
08-02-2005, 09:23 PM
Karlovic would get better results on grass, but he wins via the tiebreaker and the chances of that aren't great considering his return game, so even with an extended grass season he wouldn't be anywhere near TMC.

Gaudio, as I have said, does not deserve to qualify for TMC with five small tourney wins on clay and having played only on clay all year. Gonzalez won a clay title, a HC title and reached the quarters at Wimbledon. You tell me who is more worthy of a place.

Sjengster
08-02-2005, 09:26 PM
I'll get back to you on that after the US Open. Whoever has the better results in that period deserves it more, and chances are it'll be Gonzalez going on past hardcourt form. Right now, I'd say they're equally deserving considering that title victories is an important element of qualifying for the TMC.

Neely
08-02-2005, 09:27 PM
Sure, Sjengster, no doubt that I agree with you about what you are saying about the fundamental game skills of Karlovic or Popp. I see it the same way, they could play successfully five months on grass and without them making a Wimbledon final or even winning it, there would be no chance for them to compete for a TMC spot.

The fact is, when grass becomes a specialised surface again with its own distinct playing style and its unique set of skills, then we may see more grass specialists emerging. But as long as it plays like an organic hardcourt then there won't be any truly successful grasscourt specialists, which is a pity I agree since the old-fashioned style is certainly great to watch when you have the right combination of players.
very well said :yeah:

revolution
08-02-2005, 09:30 PM
I'll get back to you on that after the US Open. Whoever has the better results in that period deserves it more, and chances are it'll be Gonzalez going on past hardcourt form. Right now, I'd say they're equally deserving considering that title victories is an important element of qualifying for the TMC.

Gaudio deserves his titles of course, as he was the better clay court player in each one, but I don't think by playing on clay only all year and winning optional clay events warrants a place.

Sjengster
08-02-2005, 09:32 PM
Yes, well, as I've already said, only a combination of claycourt titles and consistent hardcourt results will get him into the TMC. That is a deserving TMC qualifier to me. At the moment, much as I want him to get in and atone for that diabolical performance last year, I have a feeling he'll end up on the fringes just outside the Top 10 in the Race.

Sjengster
08-02-2005, 09:34 PM
very well said :yeah:

I have to admit Neely, I would even support your favourite New Zealand fruit for his playing style if his temperament wasn't so repellent to me. :p

Neely
08-02-2005, 09:35 PM
Gaudio deserves his titles of course, as he was the better clay court player in each one, but I don't think by playing on clay only all year and winning optional clay events warrants a place.
As I have noted before with Sjengster, he "only" is in good position to qualify, as long as he doesn't do even better on clay (such as Nadal, or getting better results in clay TMS or at RG), it won't put him finalemente "over the line", as Sjengster has put it.

But the thing that still remains (so long until grass season is not longer with more and more important events) is that you can be in much better position by doing very well almost exclusively on your favourite surface clay whereas a comparable, skilfull player that loves grass most would be required to accumulate more significant results from other, for him less-liked surfaces (yes, as we also noted before, somebody who is fundmantally skilful might be easily able to get good hardcourt results, for example; but still he doesn't have the chance to play as long on his favourite surface, grass, like others who enjoy the clay as their favourite surface over virtually half of the season.)

Sjengster
08-02-2005, 09:45 PM
The whole point about the best five optional rule is that it prevents players from racking up too many points from small tournaments alone. Gaudio has 215 Race points from his five victories, it's certainly a nice base to start from but it's hardly enough on its own to get into the TMC. Believe it or not, he's earned over 100 points at big required events, and a couple of those good results weren't even on clay!

There are certainly players who maintain their position in the rankings almost entirely through clay, but they're barely ranked higher than the grass-court specialists; most are outside the Top 50. The only four players who have earned enough points on clay to make them TMC candidates over the past year are Nadal, Gaudio, Puerta and Coria, and it's fairly obvious why those four would be deserving entrants.

Neely
08-02-2005, 10:02 PM
Sure, everything right, I don't doubt your thread title at all and I see the reference to Gaudio's results and I'm aware of the existence and the sense of the "optional event rule".

Enough with the grass tennis propaganda from me for today.... :lol: :devil: ..... :bolt:

Sjengster
08-02-2005, 10:22 PM
Hey, we're all propagandists in one way or another. I come across in this thread as an exclusive clay lover and grass hater, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Action Jackson
08-03-2005, 04:43 AM
Yes they are, but there's more than one kind of fast surface, and isn't hard courts considered as medium?

The game is favoured to players who excel on faster surfaces and how much more evidence of this do you really need to be shown of this.

The facts are that Gaudio has done well in the optionals only and has been average in the main events, as I have said many times before he needs some good results on a hardcourt to get through, if he doesn't, then he won't go through, not difficult to work out.

Only 5 optionals count, hence the title of optional king. Surprise he has played off clay and this year and I suppose I was seeing things when he was on hardcourt.

Action Jackson
08-03-2005, 04:47 AM
Since when are good Grand Slam results making finals, semis, quarters or good results at Masters worth nothing?

It doesn't matter when people like you insist players are claycourt specialists, even when they have done well off the clay and had success, yet are still labelled as such by the lazy media and fans.

Considering the game is catered to fast court players and you are whining about players who just survive on their clay rankings, when there just as many players who only do it on hardcourt events, but that makes it OK.

NYCtennisfan
08-03-2005, 06:12 AM
The facts are that Gaudio has done well in the optionals only and has been average in the main events, as I have said many times before he needs some good results on a hardcourt to get through, if he doesn't, then he won't go through, not difficult to work out.

If Gaudio does better in the 3 big clay court tournaments and RG, then he is a lock with his optional clay court results. He needs to play at least decently in non-clay events and bring his best stuff in the big clay court events. Off the top of my head, he has not made it past the 4th round of any GS event other than the time he won RG and he made it to the 4th round this year. Other than that, he has never made a QF at any GS. He has never won a TMS, or even been to the final. I think he has been to 2 SF, 3 QF, and a few 4th rounds. That needs to improve. If he does do that and still has lousy results on other surfaces, I think he will consistently be around the 8th position and deserve his spot.

Action Jackson
08-03-2005, 06:20 AM
If Gaudio does better in the 3 big clay court tournaments and RG, then he is a lock with his optional clay court results. He needs to play at least decently in non-clay events and bring his best stuff in the big clay court events.

Off the top of my head, he has not made it past the 4th round of any GS event other than the time he won RG and he made it to the 4th round this year. Other than that, he has never made a QF at any GS. He has never won a TMS, or even been to the final. I think he has been to 2 SF, 3 QF, and a few 4th rounds. That needs to improve. If he does do that and still has lousy results on other surfaces, I think he will consistently be around the 8th position and deserve his spot.

All valid points and sorry to disappoint my many "friends" and hate to spoil myths. I have said and will say that he needs to improve his results off the clay, yes that means on hardcourts, and to a lesser extent indoors, it's really how he performs on that surface that is the key.

That's the thing for a hardcourt gimp he has defeated Agassi and Kafelnikov when in their primes on hardcourt and has had respectable wins, but just not consistent enough, that's down to him and him only.

It's not old news, he needs to post better results in the non-clay events and he has done that already in the ones he has played in so far, and will need to do so.

yomike
08-03-2005, 10:34 AM
Karlovic would get better results on grass, but he wins via the tiebreaker and the chances of that aren't great considering his return game, so even with an extended grass season he wouldn't be anywhere near TMC.

Gaudio, as I have said, does not deserve to qualify for TMC with five small tourney wins on clay and having played only on clay all year. Gonzalez won a clay title, a HC title and reached the quarters at Wimbledon. You tell me who is more worthy of a place.

I'm a fan of Gonzalez and he deserves a credit for doing so well at wimbledon but ignoring Gaudio's 5 titles just because there all dirt. I think you need to be reminded that Gaudio didnt play solely in clay. Hewitt(i'm guessing your a fan) on the other hand who i presumed is going to qualify in the TMC played only hardcourts and wimbledon. I know you will say "he totally deserves it", "he got injured so he didnt played the clay season" and so many other crappy reasons that hardcourter-fans give so their players can be forgiven for missing clay.In fact I dont hear anything when any player just decides to skip clay altogether which is a substantial part of the season in comparison to three weeks to a month of grass. But i dont remember any of you cutting Gaudio some slack for missing Wimbledon and grass. "Five small tourneys wins on clay" is almost saying clay is some second rate surface whose winners wont be given recognition no matter how many of it they win. I'm chill..

revolution
08-03-2005, 12:23 PM
I'm a fan of Gonzalez and he deserves a credit for doing so well at wimbledon but ignoring Gaudio's 5 titles just because there all dirt. I think you need to be reminded that Gaudio didnt play solely in clay. Hewitt(i'm guessing your a fan) on the other hand who i presumed is going to qualify in the TMC played only hardcourts and wimbledon. I know you will say "he totally deserves it", "he got injured so he didnt played the clay season" and so many other crappy reasons that hardcourter-fans give so their players can be forgiven for missing clay.In fact I dont hear anything when any player just decides to skip clay altogether which is a substantial part of the season in comparison to three weeks to a month of grass. But i dont remember any of you cutting Gaudio some slack for missing Wimbledon and grass. "Five small tourneys wins on clay" is almost saying clay is some second rate surface whose winners wont be given recognition no matter how many of it they win. I'm chill..


Me, a fan of Hewitt? HAHAHAHAHA. I despise him, not like him.
He missed the clay season because he was INJURED. Gaudio missed the grass season when he wasn't injured, so why cut him some slack?

Neely
08-03-2005, 03:27 PM
It doesn't matter when people like you insist players are claycourt specialists, even when they have done well off the clay and had success, yet are still labelled as such by the lazy media and fans.
Stop, easy now. I have explained it often enough why I'm calling some players, like Guga for example, a claycourt specialist even though they have won big tournaments off clay: it is because I have a different understanding about the term specialist and for me it is nothing bad and it only describes their biggest strength, and for Guga it's obvious with three RG titles and several Masters on clay which is by far his biggest career achievement. I'm well aware of these players achievements and when calling them clay court specialist it doesn't automatically mean I'm trying to say: "they could never win somethign big on any other surface" like you would like to understand it.

If I would like to describe people like Hernandez, Gaudio, Sanchez or Puerta I would use another word, maybe only-claycourter, or have to paraphrase it.


and anyway... what does that have to do with my question and remark?

Considering the game is catered to fast court players and you are whining about players who just survive on their clay rankings, when there just as many players who only do it on hardcourt events, but that makes it OK.
Well, there are four main surfaces in tennis. 3 are faster than clay, and 3 are slower than grass.

And I didn't say it's okay to do it only by hardcourt. If you read carefully you will notice I said that both, clay and hardcourt, have by far the most events.

David Kenzie
08-03-2005, 04:02 PM
And I didn't say it's okay to do it only by hardcourt. If you read carefully you will notice I said that both, clay and hardcourt, have by far the most events.
But there are only 4 required events on Clay compared to the 8 Hardcourt required events plus the Masters Cup and only one on Grass.

Neely
08-03-2005, 04:07 PM
But there are only 4 required events on Clay compared to the 8 Hardcourt required events plus the Masters Cup and only one on Grass.
And the one only on grass is exactly what I would extend to three (or at least two) if I was in charge :)

revolution
08-03-2005, 04:28 PM
And the one only on grass is exactly what I would extend to three (or at least two) if I was in charge :)

That would be a dream come true! All the clay snobs having fits, I'd be loving it!

Methinks GWH is trying to get at Roddick's results, when he has won a clay title, grass title, and an indoor title.

Federer- Won Hamburg TMS three times, and Munich and Gstaad so he hasn't used fast court results to get him where he is..

Nadal- Used clay all the way apart from Miami final, proof that winning on clay can get you close to No 1 in the world! But he's won a Slam so yes, top 10.

Hewitt- He's reached FO quarters before, although he hasn't won a title on it, he's still won two GS on different surfaces. Worthy of top 10.

Safin- two GS and multiple titles on various surfaces. Deserves top 10. He will also win a grass title sooner or later, now that he feels comfortable on it.

Roddick- clay titles, HC titles, indoor titles, grass titles, deserves his top 10 ranking.

Agassi- All four GS, he's won on all surfaces, he truly deserves top 10 ranking.

Davydenko- AO quarters, FO semis, titles on more than one surface, worthy of top 10 ranking.

Canas- hard court and clay results combined. Have you noticed none of the current top 10 have used just HC alone to get where they are?

These two have used clay only to get top 10.

Gaudio- Won a GS last year yes, but he has used clay only to get in to the top 10, and no other surface. Not deserving of a place in the top 10 this year, although his Slam win last year did.

Puerta- Slam final this year, but he has played on clay only, and he doesn't deserve a place in the top 10, as much as I like him.


Replace Gaudio and Puerta with two out of Henman, Coria, Nalbandian, Gonzalez and you have a worthy top 10 of players who have done it on MULTIPLE surfaces.

Castafiore
08-03-2005, 04:30 PM
But there are only 4 required events on Clay compared to the 8 Hardcourt required events plus the Masters Cup and only one on Grass
And 3 out of the 4 GS tournaments is on a faster surface. No advantage for the clay courters there.

And the one only on grass is exactly what I would extend to three (or at least two) if I was in charge
OK. I can understand that it's a bit frustrating to look at the current calendar if you love the grass surface that much but your wish would leave the clay courters really at a disadvantage, no? What would you do to balance things out again? (or wouldn't you balance it out?)

Considering the game is catered to fast court players and you are whining about players who just survive on their clay rankings, when there just as many players who only do it on hardcourt events, but that makes it OK
I really don't understand why some keep complaining about the advantage the clay courters have who get their ranking mainly on their surface.
They are indeed not really at an advantage towards fast court players and as has been said: some players get their ranking mainly on the faster surfaces managing to avoid nearly all clay tournaments. So, why not complain about them if some people are so concerned about balance in the tennis calendar? :confused:

On some website (the Washington Post, I think), a lady wrote a letter saying that she thought that Roland Garros should be removed from the Grand Slam calendar because she thought that it was an inferior GS tournament. :retard:
Luckily, the sports journalist had a great reply why it's more than a worthy GS tournament and what the attraction is of excellent clay court tennis (and also, an explanation why many American players don't do well on that surface)

revolution
08-03-2005, 04:35 PM
OK. I can understand that it's a bit frustrating to look at the current calendar if you love the grass surface that much but your wish would leave the clay courters really at a disadvantage, no? What would you do to balance things out again? (or wouldn't you balance it out?)


Hahaha. An extended grass season would upset the clay courters. Wrong. The clay courters have already said there should be an extended grass season from RG to Wimby so they can prepare.

They already have an unfair advantage, if you read my table you can see that eight of the top 10 have used results on multiple surfaces to get there, whereas the two that haven't have used clay.

Fast is not a surface, I'm afraid, there's grass, hard, carpet and clay.

Castafiore
08-03-2005, 04:45 PM
Hahaha. An extended grass season would upset the clay courters. Wrong. The clay courters have already said there should be an extended grass season from RG to Wimby so they can prepare.
Yes and I agree with that but it'll never happen.
In an ideal world, there would be more time between RG and Wimbly and in between the two would be more grass tournaments.
But if you would add important grass tournaments to the calender, you would need to adjust to balance things out again in my opinion.

Fast is not a surface, I'm afraid, there's grass, hard, carpet and clayDuh...
You're nitpicking IMO. There are surfaces on which the game is faster and there are surfaces on which the game is slower.

What I also notice is that with the regular hardcourters, people are happy to point out any sort of achievement on other surfaces...how minor that result may be.
But, on the other hand, they are quick to ignore great results of those players they love to call 'clay courters'.

Why is that?

That sports journalist, I mentionned in my previous post also had a reply to this sort of "snobbery".
For example, when people mention that Nadal did not only get results on clay courts but also did rather well in the AO (taking Hewitt to 5 sets) and in Miami for example - others are quick to complain: but Miami is so slow, it could almost be clay.
The journalist replied that the same could be said of Roddick's victories on a clay surface. One of which (Houston, I think) is not typical European clay but it's a faster surface in comparison.
Btw, I believe that Nadal already won 'challengers' on hardcourt (but I'm not sure about that)...does that count? ;) ;)

I don't really care either way. A player who reaches the top 10 has done so by winning a lot of matches.

revolution
08-03-2005, 04:54 PM
Yes and I agree with that but it'll never happen.
In an ideal world, there would be more time between RG and Wimbly and in between the two would be more grass tournaments.
But if you would add important grass tournaments to the calender, you would need to adjust to balance things out again in my opinion.

Duh...
You're nitpicking IMO. There are surfaces on which the game is faster and there are surfaces on which the game is slower.

What I also notice is that with the regular hardcourters, people are happy to point out any sort of achievement on other surfaces...how minor that result may be.
But, on the other hand, they are quick to ignore great results of those players they love to call 'clay courters'.

Why is that?

That sports journalist, I mentionned in my previous post also had a reply to this sort of "snobbery".
For example, when people mention that Nadal did not only get results on clay courts but also did rather well in the AO (taking Hewitt to 5 sets) and in Miami for example - others are quick to complain: but Miami is so slow, it could almost be clay.
The journalist replied that the same could be said of Roddick's victories on a clay surface. One of which (Houston, I think) is not typical European clay but it's a faster surface in comparison.
Btw, I believe that Nadal already won 'challengers' on hardcourt (but I'm not sure about that)...does that count? ;) ;)

I don't really care either way. A player who reaches the top 10 has done so by winning a lot of matches.


The clay court in Houston was originally from Roland Garros, so it won't be fast.

Neely
08-03-2005, 07:03 PM
And 3 out of the 4 GS tournaments is on a faster surface. No advantage for the clay courters there.
And 3 out of 4 GS tournaments are on slower surfaces than grass.
So no advantage for those either who like it as fast as grass or who like the typical playing characterics of this unique surface.

OK. I can understand that it's a bit frustrating to look at the current calendar if you love the grass surface that much but your wish would leave the clay courters really at a disadvantage, no? What would you do to balance things out again? (or wouldn't you balance it out?)
What I am demanding is more grass and a bit more carpet, less hardcourt and clay. How can it be a disadvantage for all players if the distribution between all surfaces would come closer to 25% - 25% - 25% - 25% instead of the current one?

Tennis has four main surfaces, it's not only clay or hardcourt. And grass is the among those that get the least tournaments currently, no TMS, no ISG.

So yes, for me the situation is insufficient since I know tennis because I like grass the most.

NYCtennisfan
08-03-2005, 07:39 PM
Back in the day, there was a LOT of love for carpet and I liked watching a lot of that tennis. Connors, Mac and Lendl feasted on it. A little bit later, Becker feasted as well.

Castafiore
08-03-2005, 09:35 PM
And 3 out of 4 GS tournaments are on slower surfaces than grass.
So no advantage for those either who like it as fast as grass or who like the typical playing characterics of this unique surface.
Sorry Neely...(not trying to be difficult here...at least, not on purpose ;) ) but I fail to see the relevance in regards to a tennis player trying to achieve a good ranking and trying to win a GS.
Sure, it's too bad to those who love the grass surface more than the other surfaces but as has been said before: there aren't many grass-only specialists around so where's the disadvantage in this 3/4 statistic?
Some might argue that we would see more grass-only specialists if we would have more grass tournaments but I doubt that.

I get YOUR point that you would love a division closer to 25% - 25% - 25% - 25% just because you love that surface above all others. Fair enough, but MY point is: how is the division slower courts vs faster courts (going from fast to very fast) in there? You know what I'm trying to say here? Besides our personal preference for a surface, shouldn't the calender be set up to give the vast majority of players, specialized on any sort of surface, a good opportunity to get a good ranking? In that sense, the calender now is IMHO more fair now than in a 25% - 25% - 25% - 25% system even if I agree that it would be a good idea to get more time between RG and Wimbly with more grass tournaments before Wimbledon.

Neely
08-04-2005, 01:02 AM
Okay, Castafiore. I think I understand how you mean it: you would not distribute the tournaments lonely by their surfaces, but you would look for an equilibrium of slow and fast surfaces. In consequence this would mean that you would have lots of clay while the other 50% would be the faster hardcourts, carpet and grass.

Action Jackson
08-04-2005, 03:04 AM
I'm well aware of these players achievements and when calling them clay court specialist it doesn't automatically mean I'm trying to say: "they could never win somethign big on any other surface" like you would like to understand it.

If I would like to describe people like Hernandez, Gaudio, Sanchez or Puerta I would use another word, maybe only-claycourter, or have to paraphrase it.

and anyway... what does that have to do with my question and remark?


The fact the term specialist isn't a positive one and for guys like Vicente, Volandri, Gaudio, Puerta then it would be more than fair and truthful, but it's just lazy to label all players who have done well off it as specialists, when it's clear that specialist refers to one specific field, hence where the term comes from.

You were the one questioning the reason I mentioned it initially, it was a response to my comment about people are measured by how many Slams they win and not by the other perfomances. This means the performances are overlooked when suited from particular players depending on prespective bias.

Well, there are four main surfaces in tennis. 3 are faster than clay, and 3 are slower than grass.

And I didn't say it's okay to do it only by hardcourt. If you read carefully you will notice I said that both, clay and hardcourt, have by far the most events.

We're dealing with the now and not your utopia sadly. The thing it's imperative to have good consistent hardcourt results to be considered among the elite of players, this is not the case for the clay. So do you want to debate the fact that the game is catered to fastcourt players or not? If this is not the case, then why?

Action Jackson
08-04-2005, 03:06 AM
The clay court in Houston was originally from Roland Garros, so it won't be fast.

You haven't taken into account that the differing weather conditons of the respective cities, have a different effect on how the court plays and Roland Garros hasn't been slow for years, then again you might have missed it that they have sped the game up on clay.

Action Jackson
08-04-2005, 03:10 AM
That would be a dream come true! All the clay snobs having fits, I'd be loving it!.

Incorrect , the thing is if the grass season was longer, then there would be more incentive for these players to actually put the effort into improving their game on grass.

Methinks GWH is trying to get at Roddick's results, when he has won a clay title, grass title, and an indoor title.

Hahaha, Roddick wins a MM clay title with no competition, the facts are he deserves where he is ranked and never said otherwise, try reading a bit closer next time.

You just proved the point that I was making before true, but I wonder if you can see that.

revolution
08-04-2005, 03:17 AM
The fact the term specialist isn't a positive one and for guys like Vicente, Volandri, Gaudio, Puerta then it would be more than fair and truthful, but it's just lazy to label all players who have done well off it as specialists, when it's clear that specialist refers to one specific field, hence where the term comes from.

You were the one questioning the reason I mentioned it initially, it was a response to my comment about people are measured by how many Slams they win and not by the other perfomances. This means the performances are overlooked when suited from particular players depending on prespective bias.



We're dealing with the now and not your utopia sadly. The thing it's imperative to have good consistent hardcourt results to be considered among the elite of players, this is not the case for the clay. So do you want to debate the fact that the game is catered to fastcourt players or not? If this is not the case, then why?



It could be. Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nadal, Davydenko, Agassi and Canas are in the top 10 and all have done well on clay, not hardcourt only. Rusedski can't get results on clay and therefore isn't anywhere near top 10. That tells you something.

As for Roddick's MM clay titles, Gaudio's clay titles this year have been MM's, apart from Kitzbuhel, an ISG.

Neely
08-04-2005, 03:19 AM
The fact the term specialist isn't a positive one and for guys like Vicente, Volandri, Gaudio, Puerta then it would be more than fair and truthful, but it's just lazy to label all players who have done well off it as specialists, when it's clear that specialist refers to one specific field, hence where the term comes from.
About specialist being a bad word or not, being positive or negative... I've discussed this in and out with you already and I won't change my opinion on that, regardless of what you are trying to tell me.


We're dealing with the now and not your utopia sadly.
I don't have an utopia when I'm saying there are four main surfaces in tennis. You're saying 3 of 4 Slams are played on surfaces other than clay. You're saying 3 of them are faster than clay. I'm saying also 3 of 4 Slams are played on surfaces other than grass and 3 of them are normally slower than grass. As easy if that if you want to follow that line of argumentation.

If yes, then Castafiore's suggestion would be the right one to follow for you then. Looking at the speed of the surface and dividing it by 50/50 into slow and fast and not 25/25/25/25 between the four main surfaces.

Action Jackson
08-04-2005, 03:33 AM
I don't have an utopia when I'm saying there are four main surfaces in tennis. You're saying 3 of 4 Slams are played on surfaces other than clay. You're saying 3 of them are faster than clay. I'm saying also 3 of 4 Slams are played on surfaces other than grass and 3 of them are normally slower than grass. As easy if that if you want to follow that line of argumentation.

Yes, there are 4 main surfaces and 2 of them are what the vast majority are played on. Ok, what's the proportion of clay events to grass events then? The way grass has been slowed down, it has been argued that the US Open is in fact quicker than Wimbledon, whether this is true or not is unknown.

If yes, then Castafiore's suggestion would be the right one to follow for you then. Looking at the speed of the surface and dividing it by 50/50 into slow and fast and not 25/25/25/25 between the four main surfaces.

The problem with any of this is subjective apart from clay what defines as a slow surface? You do know why grass events have been come fewer over the years and there are less grass courts.

If 10 of the 14 major events are on faster surfaces whatever the combination they make up, how is that not catered to players with a fastcourt preference?

Neely
08-04-2005, 03:45 AM
Yes, George.... the proportion of clay/hardcourt events to grass ones is exactly what I don't like.

If 10 of the 14 major events are on faster surfaces whatever the combination they make up, how is that not catered to players with a fastcourt preference?
Yes, a player who likes all faster than clay surfaces equally well can profit of these 9 or 10 events more than a player who likes clay best and who only has these four events.

But not for all players fast surface and fast surface is not the same, and for some viewers also (like for me, a fast hardcourt is not as entertaining for me to watch like a match on grass... and therefore I don't like that grass events are not more).

Action Jackson
08-04-2005, 03:53 AM
Yes, a player who likes all faster than clay surfaces equally well can profit of these 9 or 10 events more than a player who likes clay best and who only has these four events.

But not for all players fast surface and fast surface is not the same, and for some viewers also (like for me, a fast hardcourt is not as entertaining for me to watch like a match on grass... and therefore I don't like that grass events are not more).

That proved my point that's why the game is catered to fastcourt players, it can't be doubted, but within any organisation there is going to be some of hierachy and tennis is no different in this regard.

Yes, fast court players don't have to play well on clay, whereas it's the other way around and expected of players who excel on clay to play better on fast courts. Personally, it's of course better to be talented on as many surfaces as possible and part of the challenge.

That's the thing with hardcourts, how would they be classified. US hardcourt = quick and Rebound Ace = slow. Hence this is part of the reason I don't like the term claycourt specialist, when there is a clear double standard that players who do well on fast courts, don't have a pejorative name for doing well on fast surfaces.

revolution
08-04-2005, 03:57 AM
That proved my point that's why the game is catered to fastcourt players, it can't be doubted, but within any organisation there is going to be some of hierachy and tennis is no different in this regard.

Yes, fast court players don't have to play well on clay, whereas it's the other way around and expected of players who excel on clay to play better on fast courts. Personally, it's of course better to be talented on as many surfaces as possible and part of the challenge.

That's the thing with hardcourts, how would they be classified. US hardcourt = quick and Rebound Ace = slow. Hence this is part of the reason I don't like the term claycourt specialist, when there is a clear double standard that players who do well on fast courts, don't have a pejorative name for doing well on fast surfaces.


You say clay specialists are unfairly expected to well on fast courts and fast courters don't get the same treatment, so why do you mock Roddick's clay court abilities?

Action Jackson
08-04-2005, 04:02 AM
It could be. Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nadal, Davydenko, Agassi and Canas are in the top 10 and all have done well on clay, not hardcourt only. Rusedski can't get results on clay and therefore isn't anywhere near top 10. That tells you something.

All players have 5 optionals to count towards their ranking and only 5, they can do it in whatever combination they like on whatever surface they like. Nadal has his 5

No could be about Hewitt hasn't played on clay this season, he did respectably well last year on clay, that is what got him over the line in a better ranking than Roddick at the end 04, because he did better in the 4 major clay events.

It's simple no good hardcourt results at all, then you won't be in the top bracket and good clay results are not needed.

Rusedski is past it and he got to # 4 in 97 where he made the US Open final and didn't do that because of good clay performances among his good years.

As for Roddick's MM clay titles, Gaudio's clay titles this year have been MM's, apart from Kitzbuhel, an ISG.

Yes, Buenos Aires is a MM event, have look at the level of the field there, it was filled with plenty of good players played on clay, some IS events are better than ISG events. Umag was a very good field, but you'd call it a MM events, because it's an IS.

Action Jackson
08-04-2005, 04:06 AM
You say clay specialists are unfairly expected to well on fast courts and fast courters don't get the same treatment, so why do you mock Roddick's clay court abilities?

It's a fact guys who win or make finals in Slams, TMS or the TMC on hardcourts with better performances on clay are dubbed clay specialists, which is a joke. Or would you like me to go through all the examples.

Roddick is an elite player, his best performance on clay was the semis in Rome when he was so young and fresh faced and now he has got better as a player, but his results haven't on clay. He has done nothing of note on clay after 03 in the major 4 events and doesn't need to really, as he can keep playing well on his chosen surface and with him he'll be able to compete very well in the other 10 major events, therefore not needing the 4 minor ones for him.

revolution
08-04-2005, 04:11 AM
All players have 5 optionals to count towards their ranking and only 5, they can do it in whatever combination they like on whatever surface they like. Nadal has his 5

No could be about Hewitt hasn't played on clay this season, he did respectably well last year on clay, that is what got him over the line in a better ranking than Roddick at the end 04, because he did better in the 4 major clay events.

It's simple no good hardcourt results at all, then you won't be in the top bracket and good clay results are not needed.

Rusedski is past it and he got to # 4 in 97 where he made the US Open final and didn't do that because of good clay performances among his good years.


Yes, Buenos Aires is a MM event, have look at the level of the field there, it was filled with plenty of good players played on clay, some IS events are better than ISG events. Umag was a very good field, but you'd call it a MM events, because it's an IS.


Rusedski was actually quite decent on clay during that time, and reached the 4th round at RG in 1999.

Clay results are paramount to top 10, not hardcourt. Gaudio and Puerta have proved HC results are not required to make top 10. Ljubicic and Pim Pim have failed to make it too, why? Because they're not good enough on clay. Thomas Johansson needed two grass semis to get back into the top 10, so he required something other than hard courts.

It's simple, you cannot break into the top 10 with hard court results alone.

Action Jackson
08-04-2005, 04:25 AM
Rusedski was actually quite decent on clay during that time, and reached the 4th round at RG in 1999.

Clay results are paramount to top 10, not hardcourt. Gaudio and Puerta have proved HC results are not required to make top 10. Ljubicic and Pim Pim have failed to make it too, why? Because they're not good enough on clay. Thomas Johansson needed two grass semis to get back into the top 10, so he required something other than hard courts.

It's simple, you cannot break into the top 10 with hard court results alone.


It was Rusedski's results on faster surfaces that got him into the top 10, not his clay ones.

Considering Gaudio has actually done better on hardcourt this year than previous is a reason he is in the top 10, but you fail to notice that. Puerta isn't in the top 10 is he.

Pim Pim was and the only reason Ljubo hasn't is because he didn't win one of the finals he has been in, bad results in the TMS events as usual, he wins one of the optionals he is in the top 10 and the fact after his run, he has had injury problems.

Hardcourt and grass do very well on those 2 surface guaranteed in the top 10, with minimal help from clay results.

It depends on the player and it's simple a player who can do relatively well on the weakest surface will be one of the elite player, this level is different from player to player.

10 out of 14 or 13 for most players favour players who are better on faster surfaces, so they have more than enough chances to do well.

Neely
08-04-2005, 04:29 AM
That proved my point that's why the game is catered to fastcourt players, it can't be doubted, but within any organisation there is going to be some of hierachy and tennis is no different in this regard.
You said it right. It just maybe be part of tennis that there are three surfaces that are faster than clay, but again there are three that are slower than grass. It's like that it can be argued that the Decathlon in Athletics favours runners because there are four running events with only three throwing and three jumping events.

Again, I don't doubt this fact. But I would like to see more grass events, grass getting a TMS and an ISG, like hardcourt and clay :) As a player that loves clay you can play almost the whole season from the South American events at the beginning of the year until the Mickey Mouse ones in Palermo later of the season. Whereas a player that likes grass best can do nothing and only has four weeks of the whole season.

But you know, my utopia :devil:


As said previously, you can get into very good position or even "over the line" to make the Top 10, to make the Masters Cup at the end of the season by accumulating good results by clay-only or hardcourt-only tournaments; it's part of the system and if the system allows that they are worthy no matter how they qualify. But then again, it can't be done by these players who love grass the most as they only have about four weeks the whole season (it would most likely require them to win Wimbledon).

revolution
08-04-2005, 04:30 AM
It was Rusedski's results on faster surfaces that got him into the top 10, not his clay ones.

Considering Gaudio has actually done better on hardcourt this year than previous is a reason he is in the top 10, but you fail to notice that. Puerta isn't in the top 10 is he.

Pim Pim was and the only reason Ljubo hasn't is because he didn't win one of the finals he has been in, bad results in the TMS events as usual, he wins one of the optionals he is in the top 10 and the fact after his run, he has had injury problems.

Hardcourt and grass do very well on those 2 surface guaranteed in the top 10, with minimal help from clay results.

It depends on the player and it's simple a player who can do relatively well on the weakest surface will be one of the elite player, this level is different from player to player.

10 out of 14 or 13 for most players favour players who are better on faster surfaces, so they have more than enough chances to do well.


Faster surfaces aren't the same, look at Safin. He hated grass but liked HC.
Winning every HC event would probably get you to No 1 alone, but that's impossible. You need results on more than one surface.
Ljubicic could have but didn't. Aside from Pim Pim, tell me another player who used HC alone to make top 10.

I took away Gaudio's HC points and he was still top 10, as he was last year without any.

Action Jackson
08-04-2005, 04:45 AM
You said it right. It just maybe be part of tennis that there are three surfaces that are faster than clay, but again there are three that are slower than grass. It's like that it can be argued that the Decathlon in Athletics favours runners because there are four running events with only three throwing and three jumping events.

Do you understand the reasons why there aren't more grass courts? Or do you think I am talking out of my arse?

Again, I don't doubt this fact. But I would like to see more grass events, grass getting a TMS and an ISG, like hardcourt and clay As a player that loves clay you can play almost the whole season from the South American events at the beginning of the year until the Mickey Mouse ones in Palermo later of the season. Whereas a player that likes grass best can do nothing and only has four weeks of the whole season.

But you know, my utopia

What it's just as possible to avoid playing on clay. It's possible to play on hardcourts from Jan to Miami, then after that it's possible to play from Halle to Newport on grass, then from hardcourts all the year through to Paris.

As said previously, you can get into very good position or even "over the line" to make the Top 10, to make the Masters Cup at the end of the season by accumulating good results by clay-only or hardcourt-only tournaments; it's part of the system and if the system allows that they are worthy no matter how they qualify. But then again, it can't be done by these players who love grass the most as they only have about four weeks the whole season (it would most likely require them to win Wimbledon).

That's true, but using a combo of the faster surfaces without clay is the most common way it's done.

Action Jackson
08-04-2005, 04:51 AM
Faster surfaces aren't the same, look at Safin. He hated grass but liked HC.
Winning every HC event would probably get you to No 1 alone, but that's impossible. You need results on more than one surface.
Ljubicic could have but didn't. Aside from Pim Pim, tell me another player who used HC alone to make top 10.

I took away Gaudio's HC points and he was still top 10, as he was last year without any.

Ok, Safin doesn't like grass, but is an indoor monster and has plenty of chances to use that skills indoors to cover his problem with grass.

Yes, indoors are usually played on hardcourt, with the odd carpet even thrown in there. So for the purpose of this and a hardcourt is a hardcourt whether it's indoors or outdoors, hence multiplying the chances.

Ljubo didn't make the top 10 for the very simple reason is that he did shit in the TMS and the Slams had more than enough chances to do so and that was the same for Massu who did well indoors to get him on the verge of the top 10, but couldn't get in.

Considering the fact that there is a different degree of specialisation required with clay

Henman had one good clay result mixed in with good other results on faster surfaces. Agassi doesn't even need to play well on clay to be in the top 10. Hewitt hasn't needed it and Roddick would still be there easily without his optional win on clay.