[JurajCrane]

Nadal : "Hard courts are very negative for the body. I know the sport is a business and creating these courts is easier than clay or grass, but I am 100 per cent sure it is wrong."

Why not to play whole season on clay on grass, Rafa ?

[TigerTim]

If surfaces were 90s esq then what difference?

Not much, Fed may have won less in 04 perhaps or 09 but more post 09.

[guga2120]

As it has been since Wimbledon, everything out of Spain is worse and worse. Who knew he was going through all that during the clay and then going to injections. If his knees are that fragile at this point just hope he comes back at all. Rafa is the king, mens tennis is just not the same without him. If he is not in Australia too like New York it changes the whole dynamic of the tournament.

When he does come back he just has to be smart about the concrete. He has won in New York and Australia, forget it. Just pile up those clay titles.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by guga2120

As it has been since Wimbledon, everything out of Spain is worse and worse. Who knew he was going through all that during the clay and then going to injections. If his knees are that fragile at this point just hope he comes back at all. Rafa is the king, mens tennis is just not the same without him. If he is not in Australia too like New York it changes the whole dynamic of the tournament.

When he does come back he just has to be smart about the concrete. He has won in New York and Australia, forget it. Just pile up those clay titles.

King of clay, sure, but that's about it. Let's not get carried away...

[Tag]

Originally Posted by atennisfan

If the courts had not been slowed down, fed would have won more slams.

no

he would not have been as consistent, more prone to upsets when a player is hot, would have probably serve and volleyed more...put the those together, more early exits, less slams

he would still have a lot of wimbledons, a few us opens

less australians though, and certainly no french. similar to sampras, more or less, since he was sampras v2 when younger

federer is at honest enough to admit that the slowing down of the courts has brought him much success

[Tag]

Originally Posted by juan27

I don`t think soo , if the courts now would be faster like in the 90s , federer keep winning multiple slams especially wimbledon and us open , federer in very slow clay was a great player only because nadal , he lost many roland garros but in the 90s without nadal he would won at least 1 roland garros.

federer said that maybe because he wants critized the slow of the hardcourts and grass but he not want to give names of players who beneficit much more because do that it`s for problems

yes federer would still win several wimbledons and us opens, his game is naturally suited to those surfaces

however, with faster courts comes proper aggressive tennis i.e big serves, big forehands, big winners. retrieving simply doesn't work, have to hit a winner back or admit too good and move onto the next point

a lot of federer's success (especially on hard courts) came from being able to reach what was seemingly a winner by his opponent and hit a clean winner from a defensive position. not happening with proper fast courts

australia is a coin toss, always has been with the weather, balls and surface. he would win it, but perhaps not 4 of them

as for the french, no. federer was unfortunate to play nadal on clay, yes. but on the other hand, with proper slow clay comes specialists who would abuse his backhand. serve also less effective, can't bail himself out of trouble like on grass

federer was fortunate that his krytonite wasn't in the final and that the clay was fast that year

he has his french, its in the history books, but as he acknowledges himself, surface homogenization played a part in that

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by Looner

We've discussed this before but if the courts had not been homogenized/slowed down Fed would have less of an advantage over the field which would be offset by him not meeting the pig as often in non-mud GSs.

I agree with this. Fast courts would benefit Federer against the rest of the current top 4 for sure (although they'd probably not be the top 4 in such conditons, but for argument's sake), but it'd be make him far more vulnerable against the field of course, namely inspired big hitters.

Overall, it has probably been beneficial for Federer as he himself admitted, as it reduced the number and potency of threats in early rounds/before semis. Even guys like Soderling, Tsonga and Berdych, who have adapted their games to be top 8 players in slow conditions and are threats to Federer and the other top players, would obviously be far more threatening in fast surfaces where they could swing freely and fully unleash their offensive game.

[atennisfan]

Originally Posted by Tag

no

Yes.

He would have been as consistent, less prone to upsets when other player is inconsistent, would have probably serve and volleyed more and thus complete game...put the those together, less early exits, more slams

He would still have a lot of wimbledons, a few more US opens

More australians though, and certainly at least a french. Greater than sampras, obviously, since he was sampras v2 when younger, and thus much greater player when he was in his peak.

Federer is at least honest enough to admit that the slowing down of the courts has brought him much success, and what he never admitted is that not-slowing down of the courts would have won him more slams.

[Han Solo]

Back to the thread topic...if Nadal has to take around six months off without a competitive match under his belt, will he be ready and in prime form to defend his RG title? Will he have any chance of winning AO before? How much match time will he need to be up to scratch once more?

After missing Wimbledon in 2009 he looked off the pace at the US Open, where he was smashed by Del Potro. Then, defending his AO crown, he lost to Ferrer in the quarters - injured again, of course. Do any of his followers realistically think he can be back to his best with just one or two months of competitive tennis after such a long absence this time?

[Tag]

Originally Posted by atennisfan

Yes.

He would have been as consistent, less prone to upsets when other player is inconsistent, would have probably serve and volleyed more and thus complete game...put the those together, less early exits, more slams

He would still have a lot of wimbledons, a few more US opens

More australians though, and certainly at least a french. Greater than sampras, obviously, since he was sampras v2 when younger, and thus much greater player when he was in his peak.

Federer is at least honest enough to admit that the slowing down of the courts has brought him much success, and what he never admitted is that not-slowing down of the courts would have won him more slams.

i appreciate the flattery

but do try to think on your own

[juan27]

Originally Posted by Tag

yes federer would still win several wimbledons and us opens, his game is naturally suited to those surfaces

however, with faster courts comes proper aggressive tennis i.e big serves, big forehands, big winners. retrieving simply doesn't work, have to hit a winner back or admit too good and move onto the next point

a lot of federer's success (especially on hard courts) came from being able to reach what was seemingly a winner by his opponent and hit a clean winner from a defensive position. not happening with proper fast courts

australia is a coin toss, always has been with the weather, balls and surface. he would win it, but perhaps not 4 of them

as for the french, no. federer was unfortunate to play nadal on clay, yes. but on the other hand, with proper slow clay comes specialists who would abuse his backhand. serve also less effective, can't bail himself out of trouble like on grass

federer was fortunate that his krytonite wasn't in the final and that the clay was fast that year

he has his french, its in the history books, but as he acknowledges himself, surface homogenization played a part in that

for federer now the best hardcourts are indoor or the very fast hardcourts , in tournaments like dubai , rotterdam , cincinatti , basel , madrid this year , masters cup and other federer is the king.

if the courts would be like the 90s or even like 2003-2007 , federer shoould has a great advantage against the top-4 and federer was capable in the period 2003-2007 defeated great hardcourt players in faster conditios.

players like hewitt , safin , roddick , agassi , henman , blake , gonzalez , gronsjean , haas , ferrero , davydenko , nalbandian and more were much better players than tipsa , tsonga , almagro and more

[Mountaindewslave]

Originally Posted by Han Solo

Back to the thread topic...if Nadal has to take around six months off without a competitive match under his belt, will he be ready and in prime form to defend his RG title? Will he have any chance of winning AO before? How much match time will he need to be up to scratch once more?

After missing Wimbledon in 2009 he looked off the pace at the US Open, where he was smashed by Del Potro. Then, defending his AO crown, he lost to Ferrer in the quarters - injured again, of course. Do any of his followers realistically think he can be back to his best with just one or two months of competitive tennis after such a long absence this time?

I do not believe he will be able to have a shot at the Australian Open title but he has plenty of tournaments to get himself prepared by Roland Garros time.

it's sort of scary with this much of a time out of the game though, you never know if he wil return great or return with something missing

[Cereal Killer]

I miss him. I was hoping he would show up at the WTFs and now there is talk about him possibly missing the AO? Come back to me!! It's not the same without him.

[Xristos]

What do you think the chances are of Rafa playing in Melbourne?

[Freak3yman84]

Originally Posted by Xristos

What do you think the chances are of Rafa playing in Melbourne?

Likely.