Is it bad for tennis? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is it bad for tennis?

stebs
12-13-2005, 10:46 PM
Do you think it is bad for tennis that a player can be a clay court specialist and have no particular skill on any other surfaces and yet if he does very well on clay he will still get 2nd in rankings. Before the abuse starts being hurled hear me out.

I am not talking about Nadal is one thing I'd like to say, nor am i talking about any other player for that matter and i do believe Nadal is a fairly good player on other surfaces.

I am just saying that if there was a player in the mould of Nadal who was winning all the clay tournies but then that player was not like Nadal in that he COULDNT play well on other surfaces like many dirtballers he would still be able to mass enough points on clay only if he dominated to be 2nd in rankings.

I was wondering what people think about this. Is it a bad thing or not?

If a player was only skilled on an indoor/carpet surface he would not get a great ranking just from dominating that. Same goes for grass if that was the only good surface, Tim Henman is the only example i can think of here. He was good only on grass and he managed a career high placing of four because of what had alot to do with luck in some slams.

I would also like to say that I do not necasserily believe that it IS bad for tennis I would merely like to see what others say in a discussion about the subject. Cheers.

Action Jackson
12-13-2005, 10:52 PM
You mention number 2 in the world, so this means you are wanting to have a go at Nadal anyway. He wouldn't have got that high if he didn't win 2 TMS titles off clay and made a final of one off it as well.

Even when people bitched about Muster making # 1, he did win a TMS on carpet that is what actually put him in a position to do that the next year.

Point is, there is only so far a one surface specialist can go and Roddick in recent times is the closest as to someone who made # 1 without decent clay results. At the same time none of these players buy these points at the supermarket.

DrJules
12-13-2005, 11:01 PM
The list of number 1 ranked players:

1) Pete Sampras 286 weeks
2) Ivan Lendl 270
3) Jimmy Connors 268
4) John McEnroe 170
5) Bjorn Borg 109
6) Roger Federer 102
7) Andre Agassi 101
8) Lleyton Hewitt 80
9) Stefan Edberg 72
10) Jim Courier 58
11) Gustavo Kuerten 43
12) Ilie Nastase 40
13) Mats Wilander 20
14) Andy Roddick 13
15) Boris Becker 12
16) Marat Safin 9
17) John Newcombe 8
17) Juan Carlos Ferrero 8
19) Marcelo Rios 6
19) Thomas Muster 6
19) Yevgeny Kafelnikov 6
22) Carlos Moya 2
23) Patrick Rafter 1

show to be number 1 you need to be a multiple surface player.

stebs
12-13-2005, 11:05 PM
You mention number 2 in the world, so this means you are wanting to have a go at Nadal anyway. He wouldn't have got that high if he didn't win 2 TMS titles off clay and made a final of one off it as well.

Even when people bitched about Muster making # 1, he did win a TMS on carpet that is what actually put him in a position to do that the next year.

Point is, there is only so far a one surface specialist can go and Roddick in recent times is the closest as to someone who made # 1 without decent clay results. At the same time none of these players buy these points at the supermarket.

I mention number two in the world not in association with Nadal but because I am very foolishly assuming this player (lets call him player X) would play in a time when there is at least one player ala Fed who is a good player on all surfaces and so cannot be overthrown by our player X. I really am not trying to have a go at Nadal as i stated in my original post. If it seems like I am then i am very sorry. I would like to not bring an argument into this.

As for Muster i am very sorry but having only followed tennis in the last ten years i have limited knowledge on the issue of some things. However I do know that Muster was a clay player and what you said allows me to piece together the rest. So what I ask is whether Muster would jhave made the no.2 spot if he didnt have the TMS on carpet??

In your last paragraph you hit the nail on the head. There is only so far a one surface specialist can go. That is my point and i think that is a good thing, it requires more talent to play on more surfaces but the fact is if our player X fellow existed and he dominated clay but did poorly on all other surfaces he would still probably be able to get to no.2 in the rankings behind a player who is good on all other surfaces, maybe only to no.3 if there were players sharing the other titles.

The point you make about Roddick is a good one. It is very rare to get a player with no results on clay in first spot but although it is still fairly rare it is much easier for our player X to become a top 2/3 ranking player by being dominant on clay and clay alone whereas this is not the case for indoor, hardcourt or grass.

I will set you this scenario. There are three players. X,Y and Z. X is dominant on clay but poor otherwise. Y is excellent on all surfaces and does well on clay too. Z is a good all court player capable of winning on any surface though he is not as good as player Y. In this scenario I believe player Y would of course be the number one as he is generally the best, however i believe that in the tennis world of today player X would take second spot because of his clay dominance and player Z would be left in third.

stebs
12-13-2005, 11:09 PM
The list of number 1 ranked players:

1) Pete Sampras 286 weeks
2) Ivan Lendl 270
3) Jimmy Connors 268
4) John McEnroe 170
5) Bjorn Borg 109
6) Roger Federer 102
7) Andre Agassi 101
8) Lleyton Hewitt 80
9) Stefan Edberg 72
10) Jim Courier 58
11) Gustavo Kuerten 43
12) Ilie Nastase 40
13) Mats Wilander 20
14) Andy Roddick 13
15) Boris Becker 12
16) Marat Safin 9
17) John Newcombe 8
17) Juan Carlos Ferrero 8
19) Marcelo Rios 6
19) Thomas Muster 6
19) Yevgeny Kafelnikov 6
22) Carlos Moya 2
23) Patrick Rafter 1

show to be number 1 you need to be a multiple surface player.

yes certainly true but you will notice there are still some clay courters who are relatively weak on other surfaces in there but there is no-one who only plays good on grass or only plays good on hardcourt or only plays good indoors. Of course being able to play on all surfaces is a much greater weapon than being able to play just on clay but being able to play just on clay is a greater weapon than being able to play only on any other surface.

Merton
12-13-2005, 11:36 PM
Yes, but there are not even #1's who can only play on clay. Muster, Moya, Ferrero are what i called "type 2 dirtballers" in the thread about RG champions vs. Wimbledon champions.

Clara Bow
12-13-2005, 11:56 PM
Yes, but there are not even #1's who can only play on clay. Muster, Moya, Ferrero are what i called "type 2 dirtballers" in the thread about RG champions vs. Wimbledon champions.

Exactly- these players had success on other surfaces. To dismiss them as weak on other surfaces is in my mind frankly unfair. They may not have had the same level of success that they did on clay - but they were not useless on other surfaces and all had at least a Masters title or a GS final on a non-clay surface. Before Ferrero had his health problems in 2004 he made the USO final for goodness sake.

Who is the last number two player to have success on clay but no success on other surfaces? I can't recall any. You can find players who have success really only on clay and get in the top ten- Gaudio for example- but I can't recall any number two in my recent memory who just had success on clay and only on clay.

I will set you this scenario. There are three players. X,Y and Z. X is dominant on clay but poor otherwise. Y is excellent on all surfaces and does well on clay too. Z is a good all court player capable of winning on any surface though he is not as good as player Y. In this scenario I believe player Y would of course be the number one as he is generally the best, however i believe that in the tennis world of today player X would take second spot because of his clay dominance and player Z would be left in third.

Okay- I'll take a gander at this.

Here I would call player X someone like Gaudio- Y - a player like Federer, and Z- a player like Nalbandian.

X - A player like Gaudio will have some time spent in the top ten- but will never be a real strong factor for a long time in the top five. He will though have some big wins/results in big tournies that will help him stay in the top ten for a bit.

Y- A player of this caliber will be at the top for a good while.

Z- A player like this will be hovering around the top ten for a good while because they are strong on all surfaces. They may not get the huge wins- which will prevent them from really getting a foothold in the top five. But if they do start getting the big wins- could set up shop for a good while in the top five. (Nalby- please start getting your big wins and assembling your shop.)

Now- I don't think that just because players have their best results on clay means that they should be considered a player X. For example- Muster and Guga won Masters' titles on fast surfaces. Moya was a finalist at the Oz Open. Ferrero was a finalist at the USO. Nadal won Masters on outdoor and indoor hard this year. Coria has been a QF two times at the USO and reached the Round of 16 at all Grand Slams this year. So some of these players that some may say are getting good rankings just as clay specialists may actually have some very good, very solid and very important wins on non-clay surfaces.

Haute
12-14-2005, 12:53 AM
Exactly- these players had success on other surfaces. To dismiss them as weak on other surfaces is in my mind frankly unfair. They may not have had the same level of success that they did on clay - but they were not useless on other surfaces and all had at least a Masters title or a GS final on a non-clay surface. Before Ferrero had his health problems in 2004 he made the USO final for goodness sake.

SF of the 2004 AO, and beating Federer in Madrid. ;) Not many clay courters even get close to beating Roger on the faster surfaces.

Federerthebest
12-14-2005, 01:42 AM
Of course it is bad. It is only the 3rd-worlders and the stupid who care when someone like Gaudio wins Roland Garros.

alfonsojose
12-14-2005, 02:50 AM
Hingis :yeah:

drf716
12-14-2005, 03:08 AM
i think that to each his own strengths and weaknesses

maryam619
12-14-2005, 03:14 PM
rafael nadal can play on all surfaces!

musefanatic
12-14-2005, 08:20 PM
Of course it is bad. It is only the 3rd-worlders and the stupid who care when someone like Gaudio wins Roland Garros.

That was the wierdest tennis match I had ever seen and Gaudio certainly didn't deserve to win it but look what happened.

I think it's quite good we have these players who have more ability on some surfaces than others. Sampras is regarded as one of the greatest players ever yet he never would deliver on clay, just like Fed at the moment and I don't think he ever will.

I don't think it shows as a weakness though, one players weakness will be anothers strength. It just makes the game of tennis great to watch with these specialists on certain surfaces and then the all rounders.

stebs
12-14-2005, 09:51 PM
Sampras is regarded as one of the greatest players ever yet he never would deliver on clay, just like Fed at the moment and I don't think he ever will.

If you watch tennis you will see that Fed does deliver on clay. Not having won RG yet does not mean he does not deliver on clay.