1- 19 of them on clay.
2- Previously finals were played on a BO5 not BO3. It made it very difficult. In fact, many players chose not to play all MS events.
hard courts are the most relevant surface when it comes to considering whos the best, some undeniable facts:
- everyone plays well on hard courts
- competition is by far the strongest on hard courts
- no random shit patches on hard courts, its a test of true skill instead of luck
its no coincidence that the top 3 GS holders' most successful slam is a non-hard court surface, which they've used to inflate their GS count
He clearly is. And what's up with 3 clay masters? It's only one third. While this may be a somewhat higher percentage than clay tournaments overall, you can also argue that clay in general is underrepresented (grass even more obviously, especially given that it is the original tennis surface). It's not like those best-of-5 finals cut people's count in half by the way. He'll win over 35 titles before he's done.
Well the fact that 70%+ of his masters come from a surface which is only played on 33% of the time just shows how inflated his stats are from clay. Djokovic and Federer are better than Nadal at masters because they a better distribution of masters wins.
By the way, Nadal has won 8 masters on hardcourt, just 2 behind Sampras's count for hard and carpet combined. Sampras was hardly a journeyman on those surfaces. That's an impressive number as it is, he could easily reach 10.
King of Micky Carlo. And dulltards claiming HC is not the universal surface :superlol:
BTW who cares about Masters titles? I can't even remember how many Masters titles Federer has won.
The most important numbers measuring a player's greatness are Grand Slam counts, Weeks at No.1 and WTF titles. I'm expecting Dulltards' unevoluted brains will never understand this. All that they can read are clay-inflated H2Hs and Masters titles.:shrug:
I mean Fed is not good enough on hard court, even you had 6 titles a year he can not win a lot.
We know he is 2-9 against Rafa.
He is 1-6 against Andy Murray in masters, almost all in final or semi final, The truth is Fed can not beat these strong guy on his own, Roddick is the guy he should thanks for, not the surface at all
All that neutral surface crap, absolutely ridiculous. Hardcourt like grass and clay has a very specific way you need to move on it, when you are good at that, hardcourt favours you. Djokovic's sliding and way of moving on hardcourt sets him apart just as much as Nadal's movement on clay.
It's not a neutral surface, and no, not everyone plays well on hardcourts (who's the idiot that claimed that?). It takes a different skillset to win on it compared to clay and grass, but since there isn't a 'standard' in tennis, there's no way to label that different skillset as a 'neutral' ground. There are hardcourt specialists just like there are clay and grasscourt specialists. There are more hardcourt specialists? Gee, that might just be because 70% of the tour is hardcourt dominated these days. Just because it's dominant doesn't make it neutral, make 70% of the tour claycourts and you'll see a lot of claycourt specialists. Would that make it a neutral surface? Of course not, because there's no such thing in tennis.
As for the bad bounces, hardcourts have those too, less obviously, but that's hardly relevant in this discussion.
1- 19 of them on clay.
2- Previously finals were played on a BO5 not BO3. It made it very difficult. In fact, many players chose not to play all MS events.
Wins on clay - runner up - win percentage(Clay MS/Total MS)
Rafa - 19 - 6(lost only to Roger and Novak in a clay MS Final ) - 70.37%
Roger - 6 - 9(Lost only to Rafa and Stan(2003 loss to Felix)) - 28.57%
Novak - 5 - 4(Lost only to Nadal on all occasions in a clay MS Final ) - 26.32%
Wins on HC- runner up - win percentage(HC MS/Total MS)
Rafa - 8 - 7 - 29.62%
Roger - 15 - 6 - 71.43%
Novak - 14 - 6 - 73.47%(The only loss in a HC final post 2011 god-form was to Roger(Cinci'12))
I absolutely agree that when Rafa was peaking, there was no competition and he brushed aside any challenge on clay. He used it to his full advantage to prop-up his master's title count.
But one has to see that HC is more competitive and there are more players having various chances to win. Given that, Roger has made same clay finals as Rafa has made on HC and Rafa winning a title more. Djokovic is another animal on HC and 10 of 14(71.24%) of his HC masters are since the onset of 2011.
It is just absolutely awesome how only these guys have reached large number of finals and fought it out among themselves to stay on top. This is incredible.
In short, All of them are equally good and Rafa had the advantage on clay and made most use of it, like Djokovic is making use of it since 2011.
What I've always wondered is why is the year end championship never counted as a Masters title (it's certainly tougher to win than any 1000 event). It should be and then Federer is up to 27 also.
This is all we are saying. No one is discounting dull's clay titles. If there were an equal amount of MS on grass and clay, lets say 5 in hard and 2 each on clay and grass, then things would have looked considerably different. But of course for dulltards with their 2 brain cells this is simply way too difficult to grasp.
it's always awkward when people try to diminish Nadal's Master 1000 stats by claiming that there are an incredibly high amount of clay Master's 1000s. there are THREE. how many HC Master 1000's are there? oh wait, all the other ones (5) are on hardcourt! stop making excuses
it would be similar to discounting Nadal's GS count by claiming that there are too many clay GS's.
what's even worse is that the haters say this sort of stuff when Nadal has won practically every HC and grass event (I know there are only a handful). Indian Wells x3, Canada x2, Madrid (when it was indoor), US Open x2, Australian Open x1, Cincinatti x1, bundles of Miami finals, WTF finals x2, etc. and a bundle of more finals at the ones he has won.
the argument is dead in the sand. and of course he is the King of MS1000.
Because haters are not objetive, and anglo people underrate clay because they cant win there. And you have to be sure nobody care about big bowl, nascar or nfl/ mbl, americans believe what they think is normal or useful applies to the world. Go out of that bubble for once..
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mens Tennis Forums
18.5M posts
87.7K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to male tennis players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the ATP, NSMTA, to college Tennis and even everything about equipment. It's all here!