Mens Tennis Forums banner
61 - 67 of 67 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
I can, e.g. on the faster clay courts like those at Madrid (because of an altitude or the blue clay), American HarTru clay (ex-USO that Borg has failed to win), ex-Hamburg clay conditions (Federer has better resume at Hamburg/Madrid clay masters-1000 than Nadal), with faster balls overall, lower bounces at the half of events, strict 25 seconds rule instead of former 35-40, with a much deeper/stronger clay fields in that case etc.

But instead of the red clay and slower HCs, three non-clay slams & quite a few masters could again be played on the grass & indoors carpet + faster Har-Tru clay, no.
How removing hard courts and adding any type of clay at a Slam, Tour Finals and 3 Masters wouldn't decrease Djokovic's chances? Dumb.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
62,445 Posts
Nadal didn't play or retired from matches because he was getting injured again and again in his prime seasons:

Wim-2009 - the main favourite 4 weeks before the start of the event
US Open 2012 and 2014 - a top-2 favourite 6 weeks before the start of the event
AO-2014 - a very very big favourite the day before the finals
AO 2010 and 2018 - a top-2 favourite before the start of the quarterfinals
FO-2016 - a top-2 favourite before the start of the round 3

How possible is it that a healthy Nadal would have won none of these? 5%? 2%? 1%? So, it's clear that the weight of 20 Slam titles with a huge amount of opportunities missed due to injuries is bigger than the weight of 20 Slam titles with almost no injuries got.

There is a clear reason to imagine tour with more clay. If player A has 10/10 level on hard courts and 5/10 on clay and player B has it vice versa, the former will have higher ranking because of hard court skewed calendar, but he should not be considered the better player for obvious reasons.

It's impossible to quantify level of injury. Nadal obviously wasn't too injured to play Wimbledon 2009, and yet he didn't play. Federer and Djokovic in his position would have played. They have also struggled with injuries. You do the math. Injuries isn't an argument that helps Nadal, even from those who won't claim it's an athlete's own responsibility to remain uninjured.

You're not supposed to win as much from being 10/10 on clay and 5/10 on hard as vice versa. Noone ever established a principle that all surfaces should have equal standing, and if they did, carpet is the biggest loser, then grass. Not clay.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,920 Posts
It's impossible to quantify level of injury. Nadal obviously wasn't too injured to play Wimbledon 2009, and yet he didn't play. Federer and Djokovic in his position would have played. They have also struggled with injuries. You do the math. Injuries isn't an argument that helps Nadal, even from those who won't claim it's an athlete's own responsibility to remain uninjured.

You're not supposed to win as much from being 10/10 on clay and 5/10 on hard as vice versa. Noone ever established a principle that all surfaces should have equal standing, and if they did, carpet is the biggest loser, then grass. Not clay.
He apparently thinks that skipping slams is the only way someone can be injured. He’s not considering that players can still play while injured. Djokovic, for example, lost two years of his absolute peak due to an elbow injury (2016-2018) but yet mostly played on and kept losing early. Had Djokovic skipped these slams, it wouldn’t make him any more injured than he already was.

And to use his own logic/argument… Had Djokovic been healthy, how likely is it that he would have won 0 slams during this two-year period after he won 4 slams in a row and broke the points record (16950)?

Apparently the word injury applies to Nadal and nobody else 🤷🏻‍♂️

And his argument about there being more hard courts is a tired one as there have been more tournaments on hard for decades. It didn’t change after Nadal started playing. Nadal chose to focus more on clay. And besides, there’s at least a lot of variety on hard courts - they can vary in speed/bounce considerably. And that gives Nadal the advantage of being able to play on hard courts that can mimic clay. Is there a clay court that’s anything but really slow and high bouncing? There’s not. In order to have more clay courts we need more variety like hard courts have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
It's impossible to quantify level of injury. Nadal obviously wasn't too injured to play Wimbledon 2009, and yet he didn't play. Federer and Djokovic in his position would have played. They have also struggled with injuries. You do the math. Injuries isn't an argument that helps Nadal, even from those who won't claim it's an athlete's own responsibility to remain uninjured.

You're not supposed to win as much from being 10/10 on clay and 5/10 on hard as vice versa. Noone ever established a principle that all surfaces should have equal standing, and if they did, carpet is the biggest loser, then grass. Not clay.
Nadal was injured enough not to play at his prime level. He still finished many events with injury though, including this year's French Open. Keeping yourself uninjured depends a lot on body specifics. In 2005 Nadal has been diagnosed with congenital foot defect called Kohler's disease and his career was close to getting over. He found a way to keep playing, but that disease resulted in chronical knee injuries. Neither Djokovic nor Federer ever had to deal with such a serious type of an issue. Not even close. So yes, winning 20 Slams with Nadal's health background is miles tougher than with Djokovic's or Federer's.

As much as I know, carpet was removed from calendar because it was dangerous for players. Any possible way to make surface distribution more fair means removing current slow and medium hard courts, which would hurt Djokovic not Nadal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,472 Posts
How removing hard courts and adding any type of clay at a Slam, Tour Finals and 3 Masters wouldn't decrease Djokovic's chances? Dumb.
I've responded to your hypothetical question "Can you imagine Djokovic having as many Slam titles as Nadal and only 1 Masters title less ... ? " and instead of your imaginary heavily clay skewed season, that has never actually existed, I've suggested the reintroduction of the former grass/carpet skewed seasons from the 70's/80's, e.g. by implementing three slams on the grass or a faster Har-Tru green clay at USO and the grass at AO/Wimb + several carpet masters/YEC instead of HC, which would IMO benefit Djokovic more than Nadal.

Instead of those two grass slams & several carpet masters/YEC from the 70s & 80s, Fedalovic & co. have actually competed on the slower/medium HC + the slower Wimb and RG, also usually with the use of slower balls and 35-40 seconds allowed between the points, still, it was not slow enough for some fans/tards here, I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,959 Posts
Good job. U beat me to it.

There was a period when there were NO HC majors but dominated by Grass & then two types of Clay.
And no, the Grass was not like today’s conditions but fast low bouncing.

Since the change to USO Laykold from high bouncing former Decoturf, unless Nadal get’s repeats of USO17 & 19 like draws, i don’t see him in future finals there.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
62,445 Posts
Nadal was injured enough not to play at his prime level. He still finished many events with injury though, including this year's French Open. Keeping yourself uninjured depends a lot on body specifics. In 2005 Nadal has been diagnosed with congenital foot defect called Kohler's disease and his career was close to getting over. He found a way to keep playing, but that disease resulted in chronical knee injuries. Neither Djokovic nor Federer ever had to deal with such a serious type of an issue. Not even close. So yes, winning 20 Slams with Nadal's health background is miles tougher than with Djokovic's or Federer's.

As much as I know, carpet was removed from calendar because it was dangerous for players. Any possible way to make surface distribution more fair means removing current slow and medium hard courts, which would hurt Djokovic not Nadal.
Every tennis player in his 30s (or more) have been injured enough not to play at his prime level a bunch of times, I can assure you of that. Some are better at soldiering through and playing anyway, others are more careful and prefer not to play. The latter strategy might even be the right one as regards to future results. So I'm not saying Nadal's strategy has been dumb. But I am saying there is zero proof he's been more injured than the others.

As said, noone has ever tried to make a fair surface distribution, but given that Djokovic leads Nadal three to one on grass and less than three to one on HC it seems unlikely it would recude the gap between them if we'd have more grass and less HC.
 
61 - 67 of 67 Posts
Top