Another Monte Carlo question

[Iceberg]

Just wondering how amazing Nadal's win at Monte Carlo was, I mean, is
Nadal's 8 wins at Monte Carlo, the longest and most consecutive wins
of a tournament EVER IN WORLD HISTORY EVER?

[MBDunc]

Navratilova won Chigaco 12 times (6 in-a-row, skipped twice, then won
3-in-a-row and finally after losing at QF won 3 more in-a-row ) and
also she won Eastborne 12 times.

She also won Dallas and Washingon 9 times....and *gasp* Wimbledon 9
times.

that saying of course Nadal's 8 Monte Carlos in a-row is an insane
record....

.mikko

[TT]

Yes, it is. During whole history of tennis, 135 years, no man or woman
has done that before.

I'm glad you asked.

[TT]

23.4.2012 21:58, MBDunc kirjoitti:
> On 23 huhti, 19:01, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just wondering how amazing Nadal's win at Monte Carlo was, I mean, is
>> Nadal's 8 wins at Monte Carlo, the longest and most consecutive wins
>> of a tournament EVER IN WORLD HISTORY EVER?
>
> Navratilova won Chigaco 12 times (6 in-a-row, skipped twice, then won
> 3-in-a-row and finally after losing at QF won 3 more in-a-row ) and
> also she won Eastborne 12 times.
>
> She also won Dallas and Washingon 9 times....and *gasp* Wimbledon 9
> times.
>

Well they weren't consecutive, were they...

Can't even find same achievement from ridiculously uncompetitive world
of female tennis.

> that saying of course Nadal's 8 Monte Carlos in a-row is an insane
> record....
>
> .mikko
>

Might make it 9 in a row next year.

[Javier González]

On Apr 23, 6:04 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> 23.4.2012 21:58, MBDunc kirjoitti:
>
> > On 23 huhti, 19:01, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> Just wondering how amazing Nadal's win at Monte Carlo was, I mean, is
> >> Nadal's 8 wins at Monte Carlo, the longest and most consecutive wins
> >> of a tournament EVER IN WORLD HISTORY EVER?
>
> > Navratilova won Chigaco 12 times (6 in-a-row, skipped twice, then won
> > 3-in-a-row and finally after losing at QF won 3 more in-a-row ) and
> > also she won Eastborne 12 times.
>
> > She also won Dallas and Washingon 9 times....and *gasp* Wimbledon 9
> > times.
>
> Well they weren't consecutive, were they...

Your fanboyism knows no limits. Seriously? 8 in a row > 9 non-
consecutive? TROLOLOOOOL.

[felangey]

>Well they weren't consecutive, were they...

>Your fanboyism knows no limits. Seriously? 8 in a row > 9 non-consecutive?
>TROLOLOOOOL.

And yet, Fed's 5xWimby and 5xUS Open streak combo is worthless in TT's eyes.
You have to keep it smart people!....runs are only worth something on clay
in the most prestigous non-mandatory events! :))

[TT]

Obviously 9 is more titles and better in that respect. But 8 consecutive
is different, it speaks more about dominance than something with losses
in the middle of streak. It's in different category to begin with.

[TT]

24.4.2012 0:36, felangey kirjoitti:
>> Well they weren't consecutive, were they...
>
>> Your fanboyism knows no limits. Seriously? 8 in a row > 9
>> non-consecutive? TROLOLOOOOL.
>
> And yet, Fed's 5xWimby and 5xUS Open streak combo is worthless in TT's
> eyes.

5 consecutive is not that much. Besides, W and USO are not b2b tournaments.

[TT]

Let's demonstrate the difference with a question: Which one is better -
81 streak on clay or streaks of 42 and 40 with one loss in between?

What I mean by saying that they are in different category is that
Navra's total of 9 titles is not a record even for herself... while
Nadal's 8 consecutive is all-time record.

[felangey]

> What I mean by saying that they are in different category is that Navra's
> total of 9 titles is not a record even for herself... while Nadal's 8
> consecutive is all-time record.

Yeah, but if stood against a record of 9 "anytime"....it is not as good,
right? At least I don't think so. That said, 8 is plenty and speaks of a
very dominant run.

[TT]

24.4.2012 1:03, felangey kirjoitti:
>> What I mean by saying that they are in different category is that
>> Navra's total of 9 titles is not a record even for herself... while
>> Nadal's 8 consecutive is all-time record.
>
> Yeah, but if stood against a record of 9 "anytime"....it is not as good,
> right? At least I don't think so.

I do think that Nadal's 8 consecutive is much more impressive than
winning say 3, 4 and 2 while losing couple times in between.

8, btw, is also a shared record for most titles in single tournament,
during Open Era.

Rafa could still win a few...

[felangey]

> I do think that Nadal's 8 consecutive is much more impressive than winning
> say 3, 4 and 2 while losing couple times in between.

Cool.....so if it came to a tie in GS titles and YEC's.....Fed would
currently get the nod over Nadal because of his double slam streak of 5?
It's not how I see it....but interesting.

[Iceberg]

since when has anyone won 8 consecutive USO's and Wimbledon's in a
row??

[felangey]

>since when has anyone won 8 consecutive USO's and Wimbledon's in a row??

Having comprehension problems again old boy? Are you back on the gluten
again....HEY! DID YOU EAT A PIZZA!!!? Tch!

[Iceberg]

yes, but only 6 consecutive, Nadal has somehow won 8 consecutive
titles, does that mean it's the MOST IN WORLD HISTORY EVER MADE?

[TT]

Nope.

I don't think 5 consecutive being more impressive than 6 total. That's
because 5 consecutive is not that special.

[TT]

..You know you have to draw somewhere the line - you can't claim that 2
consecutive titles is better than 3.

[Iceberg]

caught you, Fedfan! all you are trying to do is detract from Sampras'
6 consecutive years, that's what you're up to isn't it!

[TT]

I see you didn't really have a valid reply to Iceman's question. Owned.

[felangey]

> ..You know you have to draw somewhere the line - you can't claim that 2
> consecutive titles is better than 3.

And my, what a convenient self-serving little line you choose to draw.
Shocked.

Two slams, 5 times in a row each in a body of work.....meh......one
non-mandatory 1000 level event 8 times.....dingdingdingding! :)

Behave.

[TT]

Yes, it's the record during Earth's history - for the whole 4.5 billion
years.

[Javier González]

On Apr 23, 7:22 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> 24.4.2012 1:03, felangey kirjoitti:
>
> >> What I mean by saying that they are in different category is that
> >> Navra's total of 9 titles is not a record even for herself... while
> >> Nadal's 8 consecutive is all-time record.
>
> > Yeah, but if stood against a record of 9 "anytime"....it is not as good,
> > right? At least I don't think so.
>
> I do think that Nadal's 8 consecutive is much more impressive than
> winning say 3, 4 and 2 while losing couple times in between.

What a fanboy. You keep your consecutives, I'll take the extra cup.

[TT]

Does winning 5 consecutive in 2 tournaments make it 10 consecutive?

Congrats fed for dominating 10 years in a row.

Ding ding

[TT]

I'm not a fan of consecutives - but I'd take the all-time record.

Nadal has dominated MC like no player ever has in any tournament. I
thought fedfuckers like domination.

You do sound like a fedfucker after 8th MC title.

[bob]

felangey master of the 1 liners. God forbid if he's forced into a 2nd
line....

bob

[felangey]

>Does winning 5 consecutive in 2 tournaments make it 10 consecutive?
>
> Congrats fed for dominating 10 years in a row.
>
>Ding ding

What will stand as the greatest achievement....5 straight Wimbledons....or 8
straight MC's?

You are saying that you are a believer in the greatness of the streak. I
have said repeatedly I don't buy into that....though many do. However, if
you are saying that a streak has merit....the surely, when comparing slams
between two guys of equal standing, give the advantage to the one with the
bigger streaks?

[felangey]

>What a fanboy. You keep your consecutives, I'll take the extra cup.

A-thankyou. Me too.

[Whisper]

You're missing the point - surely not on purpose?

8 times in a row is a unique achievement in tennis history. He set the
record right in the middle of Fed era.

[Whisper]

8 is the ultimate standard in tennis history as far as consecutive
tournament wins go.

I wonder if you would be so flippant if Fed did it?

[Court_1]

But it is on clay and nobody disputes the fact that Nadal is a much
better clay court player than Federer. If Nadal did this in Federer's
era on HC or grass, that would be a different story.

[Whisper]

On 24/04/2012 11:18 AM, felangey wrote:
>> Does winning 5 consecutive in 2 tournaments make it 10 consecutive?
>>
>> Congrats fed for dominating 10 years in a row.
>>
>> Ding ding
>
> What will stand as the greatest achievement....5 straight
> Wimbledons....or 8 straight MC's?

But all Fedfuckers, including you, continually rave on about Fed's
20-something consecutive slam semis as some kind of mighty record? This
isn't even winning anything, it's just reaching a semi.

I bet if it were Rafa you'd be minimizing it too. Am I right? Be
honest now you leech.

[Whisper]

Anytime you set an all time record is noteworthy. No need to minimize it.

[Superdave]

the ultimate standard?8 MC's ? bigger than 7 wimbledons you are saying?

i see. i see.

[Court_1]

But YOU are trying to do exactly that--i.e. minimize Federer by
stating that Nadal won 8 straight titles at MC during Federer's era.
What does it have to do with Federer? Why even mention Federer. You
can't help yourself huh? ;) Federer is not known as a clay court
specialist. Federer has won 6 Wimbledon titles, 5 USO's and 4 AO's.
Surely that is a greater feat than winning 8 of a non-mandatory tune
up event. YOU are the man who always states that tune-up events mean
nothing to a players' legacy. Now you are trying to elevate a tune-up
event?

Tell me do you think that the 8 MC titles are greater than Sampras' 7
W titles even though they were not consecutive? Hmmm? No rational
human being could possibly think that 8 MC's>7 W's.

[TT]

Maybe not greater, but could be that Nadal's feat is harder...especially
at MC in BO5.

It certainly is more rare.

[felangey]

>It certainly is more rare.

....because of all the people with 7 Wimbledon trophies?

Jeez! :)

[TT]

Both of them.

But there are some players who have won 7 titles in a tournament, and
only one who has won 8 consecutive titles. So yes, it is more rare.

[Court_1]

????

Who besides Sampras has won 7 Wimbledon titles?

The point is winning 7 W's or even winning a few slam titles is more
prestigious than winning 8 non-slam titles. Now if Nadal is able to
win 7 FO's, then that is a whole other thing and something to get all
worked up about. Save it until then! ;)

[Iceberg]

Federer is a clay court specialist though, he grew up on the stuff.

[Court_1]

Federer is no clay court specialist and Nadal is miles ahead of
Federer on clay Djokovic,Tsonga and Gasquet grew up playing on clay
as well. Are they clay court specialists? (rolls eyes)

[arnab.z@gmail]

Federer is an all surface specialist. Federer is the only man to have
reached the final of each Major at least five times. That's
exceptional.

[arnab.z@gmail]

Federer is by far the second best clay courter in the 2000s. Right
after Rafa. If all time best claycourter Rafa weren't there, Federer
would have won 3/4 more FOs in another era.

It's silly to name Federer a specialist of this or that surface. He is
in his own category. He is too talented to be surface dependent. The
results are proof.

[TT]

24.4.2012 19:17, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Apr 24, 12:06 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 24.4.2012 18:48, felangey kirjoitti:
>>
>>>> It certainly is more rare.
>>
>>> ....because of all the people with 7 Wimbledon trophies?
>>
>>> Jeez! :)
>>
>> Both of them.
>>
>> But there are some players who have won 7 titles in a tournament, and
>> only one who has won 8 consecutive titles. So yes, it is more rare.
>
> ????
>
> Who besides Sampras has won 7 Wimbledon titles?

William Renshaw

>
> The point is winning 7 W's or even winning a few slam titles is more
> prestigious than winning 8 non-slam titles.

I didn't claim it isn't. Listen more carefully what I type. :-P

I said winning 8 cons MC titles is probably harder and factually more
rare than winning 7 titles during one's career in any tournament.

[arnab.z@gmail]

It's statistically rarer. But it's quite insignificant next to
consecutive slam victories.

[Court_1]

Federer would only be number two in the 2000's because the clay court
compeition aside from Nadal is nil. Put some tougher clay court
competiton in there and I don't think Federer would do as well. But,
you are right that Federer is talented on any surface, it is just that
clay is his weakest surface and HC and grass are his best surfaces.
The fact that he grew up on clay means nothing.

[Court_1]

Good answer. TT this is my answer too, lol.

[arnab.z@gmail]

I don't think that's the case. Yours is basically the clay version of
Whimpyboob's "clown era" theory.

> Put some tougher clay court
> competiton in there and I don't think Federer would do as well.

Nah. Federer's clay pedigree is right up there when he bothers. He was
the only person to beat Nadal multiple times on clay, albeit in the
Masters level, smack in the middle of Nadal's insane clay streak. He
actually held 2 matchpoints in Rome against Nadal. Which indicates
Federer is a pretty bad-ass claycourter himself, if he wants it hard.
A non-peak Federer beat a red hot Djokovic in FO just the last year,
where Djokovic was fresh off multiple clay wins against Nadal. That is
also an indication of Federer's abilities on clay.

> But,
> you are right that Federer is talented on any surface, it is just that
> clay is his weakest surface and HC and grass are his best surfaces.
> The fact that he grew up on clay means nothing.

Yeah, I don't think it has anything with him growing up on clay. He's
just naturally talented. His game is easily adaptable on any surface.

[Shakes]

So is Nadal's game now. Nadal has made 4 HC finals (since 2009), 5
grass finals, 6 clay finals so far - not too shabby. And he is
probably going to make a few more on multiple surfaces by the time
he's done.

[arnab.z@gmail]

Not as impressive as Federer. Federer made it look easy. Nadal makes
it look like a herculean task, which it is. Which again demonstrates
Federer's superioity.

> Nadal has made 4 HC finals (since 2009), 5
> grass finals, 6 clay finals so far - not too shabby.

Clay and Grass, I'd give it to you. But 4 HC finals? That's definitely
shabby when compared against Federer's achievements on HC. Federer has
made 11 HC finals!!

If you think Nadal's HC game is in any way comparable to Federer's in
terms of consistency at Grand Slam level, then I doubt your tennis
analysis skills.

> And he is
> probably going to make a few more on multiple surfaces by the time
> he's done.

I don't think he is going to catch Federer. Not on HC, not overall.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On Apr 25, 2:57 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2:39 am, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Federer is also the only player to reach all 9 Masters Series
tournament finals.

This guy is really much better than anything we have seen. The
discipline, the drive, the consistency, the overall success ---
everything points to somebody really really special.

[Shakes]

How does that matter ? Isn't making multiple slam Finals on all
surfaces enough proof that Nadal's game is also pretty adaptable
across different surfaces ? Nadal is younger too. Since 2005, for
example, Fed has made 5 FO finals, 5 Wim finals, 4 USO finals, 3 AO
finals - 7 HC finals, 5 grass, and 5 clay finals (17 total). Nadal has
made 6 clay finals, 5 grass finals, and 4 HC finals (15 total). Seems
pretty close.

> > Nadal has made 4 HC finals (since 2009), 5
> > grass finals, 6 clay finals so far - not too shabby.
>
> Clay and Grass, I'd give it to you. But 4 HC finals? That's definitely
> shabby when compared against Federer's achievements on HC. Federer has
> made 11 HC finals!!
>

Well, you should compare Nadal's HC performance to Fed's clay. Both
are their respective weakest surfaces.

> If you think Nadal's HC game is in any way comparable to Federer's in
> terms of consistency at Grand Slam level, then I doubt your tennis
> analysis skills.
>
> > And he is
> > probably going to make a few more on multiple surfaces by the time
> > he's done.
>
> I don't think he is going to catch Federer. Not on HC, not overall.

Maybe so. But still at least 4 finals on each surface dispels any
doubts about Nadal's adaptability.

[arnab.z@gmail]

It's obvious. Federer made more slam finals in all slams.

> Nadal is younger too. Since 2005, for
> example, Fed has made 5 FO finals, 5 Wim finals, 4 USO finals, 3 AO
> finals - 7 HC finals, 5 grass, and 5 clay finals (17 total). Nadal has
> made 6 clay finals, 5 grass finals, and 4 HC finals (15 total). Seems
> pretty close.
>

The post-2005 cutoff point looks completely arbitrary and
cherrypicking. But let's play your game.

Grass and Clay looks neck and neck.

But how can you possibly say it is pretty close on HC? Post-2005,
Federer, despite being 5 years older than Nadal, despite gradually
falling off his peak, has actually made almost twice (7 vs 4) as many
HC GS finals than Nadal. This actually supports my point that Federer
has been more impressive in his mastery of different surfaces/slams
than Nadal.

> > > Nadal has made 4 HC finals (since 2009), 5
> > > grass finals, 6 clay finals so far - not too shabby.
>
> > Clay and Grass, I'd give it to you. But 4 HC finals? That's definitely
> > shabby when compared against Federer's achievements on HC. Federer has
> > made 11 HC finals!!
>
> Well, you should compare Nadal's HC performance to Fed's clay. Both
> are their respective weakest surfaces.

Why? To intentionally make Nadal look better and Federer look worse
using an apple vs orange comparison? That what you want? Sorry, not
interested.

Look, if you enter a draw in a grand slam, you should be responsible
for your results. "This is not my best surface" is a kind of excuse
more than anything. Of course, this type of excuse-making appeals to
you when it comes to Sampras. We have seen this before.

> > If you think Nadal's HC game is in any way comparable to Federer's in
> > terms of consistency at Grand Slam level, then I doubt your tennis
> > analysis skills.
>
> > > And he is
> > > probably going to make a few more on multiple surfaces by the time
> > > he's done.
>
> > I don't think he is going to catch Federer. Not on HC, not overall.
>
> Maybe so. But still at least 4 finals on each surface dispels any
> doubts about Nadal's adaptability.

That was not the point. Federer has been much more impressive than
Nadal in terms of adaptability. The results are proof. That's the
point.

[Shakes]

Well, Nadal is younger too. You have to take that into account. You
could do an age-wise comparision or a time-period comparision.

> Grass and Clay looks neck and neck.
>
> But how can you possibly say it is pretty close on HC? Post-2005,
> Federer, despite being 5 years older than Nadal, despite gradually
> falling off his peak, has actually made almost twice (7 vs 4) as many
> HC GS finals than Nadal. This actually supports my point that Federer
> has been more impressive in his mastery of different surfaces/slams
> than Nadal.
>

I didn't say it's close on HC. I said it's close overall (17 slams
finals vs. 15). Nadal can still close the gap on grass/HC, extend it
on clay.

>
> > Well, you should compare Nadal's HC performance to Fed's clay. Both
> > are their respective weakest surfaces.
>
> Why? To intentionally make Nadal look better and Federer look worse
> using an apple vs orange comparison? That what you want? Sorry, not
> interested.
>

Adaptability also includes the ability to improve/change your game
across surfaces as you go along. And Nadal did that better than Fed.
Starting off as primarily a clay-courter, Nadal caught on to grass,
then made the transition quite well on to HC. If you want to say that
Fed's game is more out-of-the-box-ready than Nadal's across different
surfaces, I agree.

> Look, if you enter a draw in a grand slam, you should be responsible
> for your results. "This is not my best surface" is a kind of excuse
> more than anything. Of course, this type of excuse-making appeals to
> you when it comes to Sampras. We have seen this before.
>

What excuses regarding Sampras ? That he was past his peak in 2001
when he was thrashed by Hewitt ? You think that's an excuse ?

Or you have a problem that the stats show that Sampras didn't serve
with his usual venom in that F ?

Have you ever caught me making excuses for Sampras' losses before
2000 ?

> > > If you think Nadal's HC game is in any way comparable to Federer's in
> > > terms of consistency at Grand Slam level, then I doubt your tennis
> > > analysis skills.
>
> > > > And he is
> > > > probably going to make a few more on multiple surfaces by the time
> > > > he's done.
>
> > > I don't think he is going to catch Federer. Not on HC, not overall.
>
> > Maybe so. But still at least 4 finals on each surface dispels any
> > doubts about Nadal's adaptability.
>
> That was not the point. Federer has been much more impressive than
> Nadal in terms of adaptability. The results are proof. That's the
> point.

I disagree. See my point about Nadal slowly improving on all surfaces.
Fed was already good on multiple surfaces. Beyond that, he didn't
adapt much. For example, Nadal adapted from beating Fed only on clay
to beating Fed on grass and then beating Fed on HC. Isn't that
adaptable ? Was Fed able to do the same ?

[Court_1]

On Apr 24, 3:22 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nah. Federer's clay pedigree is right up there when he bothers. He was
> the only person to beat Nadal multiple times on clay, albeit in the
> Masters level, smack in the middle of Nadal's insane clay streak. He
> actually held 2 matchpoints in Rome against Nadal. Which indicates
> Federer is a pretty bad-ass claycourter himself, if he wants it hard.
> A non-peak Federer beat a red hot Djokovic in FO just the last year,
> where Djokovic was fresh off multiple clay wins against Nadal. That is
> also an indication of Federer's abilities on clay.

Beat Nadal multiple times on clay? Federer beat Nadal on clay exactly
two times out of 14 matches. Djokovic in one year has already defeated
Nadal on clay the same number of times as Federer. Federer is an
overall talent on all surfaces but I am sorry, when it comes to
defeating Nadal on clay, Federer failed. It does not really matter
because he was so good on HC and grass. No player can play equally
well on all surfaces or if they can it is very rare. They always have
a weakest surface.

And yes I do think this clay court generation is weak.

.

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Apr 24, 3:23 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I disagree. See my point about Nadal slowly improving on all surfaces.
> Fed was already good on multiple surfaces. Beyond that, he didn't
> adapt much. For example, Nadal adapted from beating Fed only on clay
> to beating Fed on grass and then beating Fed on HC. Isn't that

> adaptable ? Was Fed able to do the same ?- Hide quoted text -

Well, let's see... he won Wimbledon (grass) in 2003, AO/USO (hard) in
2004 and FO (clay) in 2009... so ya... pretty much in terms of the
majors... though they aren't everything...

P

[Whisper]

A 5-time FO finalist is not a clay specialist? Now I've heard it all.

[Whisper]

Aren't all the surfaces the same today, allowing players to play the
same style everywhere? That's gotta make it easier than in the past right?

[MBDunc]

Was Borg grass specialist (5 wimb titles and one final in a row).?
Was Connors grass specialist (4 grass slam titles + 5 grass slams
runnerups).?
Is Nadal grass specialist (2 wimb titles + 3 runnerups).?

.mikko

[Whisper]

Not quite right. He would have won that in this era, but most likely
none, maybe 1 in other eras.

>
> It's silly to name Federer a specialist of this or that surface. He is
> in his own category. He is too talented to be surface dependent. The
> results are proof.

All the top players have similar results on all surfaces - eg Rafa has
made 6 FO finals on clay, but also 5 Wimbledon finals on grass. Fed is
similar with 7 Wimbledon finals & 5 FO finals. Djoker & Murray are
always at least reaching the semis on all 3 surfaces & all 4 slams.
That has to tell you something about how the court speeds have changed
right?

[Whisper]

I agree the surfaces mean nothing today. The better player on the day
wins & his opponent goes down. Fed has made 12 Wim/FO finals, v 11 for
Rafa (good chance he'll get 12 next month at FO). It used to be rare
for that to happen due to vastly different court characteristics between
grass & clay in old days, now it's common as chips.

[Whisper]

Well they've played more than once in HC slams, & Rafa has won every time.

[Whisper]

On 25/04/2012 8:23 AM, Shakes wrote:
>>>> I don't think he is going to catch Federer. Not on HC, not overall.
>>
>>> Maybe so. But still at least 4 finals on each surface dispels any
>>> doubts about Nadal's adaptability.
>>
>> That was not the point. Federer has been much more impressive than
>> Nadal in terms of adaptability. The results are proof. That's the
>> point.
>
> I disagree. See my point about Nadal slowly improving on all surfaces.
> Fed was already good on multiple surfaces. Beyond that, he didn't
> adapt much. For example, Nadal adapted from beating Fed only on clay
> to beating Fed on grass and then beating Fed on HC. Isn't that
> adaptable ? Was Fed able to do the same ?

Rafa was always better than Fed. Their very 1st meeting was not clay
but HC. Fed was dominant no.1 in 2004 & won 3 slams + everything else,
yet teen Rafa kicked his butt 63 63.

[MBDunc]

It was different during 90:ies and even then there were players who
reached slam finals at both venues (Courier, Agassi....and Agassi even
had W-F-W-W streak at slams 99-00).

Look further and top players did well equally. Whether name was
Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Borg,....even Lendl/Wilander with their non-
grass games both reached 3 grass finals.

90:ies was overall different. Maybe conditions created that
environment which led to specialists. But then again if Agassi makes W-
F-W-W streak at slams and manages to win all four....

You could do better if you broadened your perspective beyond Sampras
times....

.mikko

[Whisper]

What do you mean by 'specialist'? Someone who does well on a surface,
or the guy who does less well?

[MBDunc]

I asked apparently too hard questions. In generally you need better
judo skills to throw it back to me, remember next time. It would have
been a nice dodge with someone else maybe.

But I advice you to answer with using your tier1 expert skillset and
based on your gutfeelings if nothing else helps you in this enormously
hard task.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On Apr 25, 4:23 am, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > Nadal is younger too. Since 2005, for
> > > example, Fed has made 5 FO finals, 5 Wim finals, 4 USO finals, 3 AO
> > > finals - 7 HC finals, 5 grass, and 5 clay finals (17 total). Nadal has
> > > made 6 clay finals, 5 grass finals, and 4 HC finals (15 total). Seems
> > > pretty close.
>
> > The post-2005 cutoff point looks completely arbitrary and
> > cherrypicking. But let's play your game.
>
> Well, Nadal is younger too. You have to take that into account. You
> could do an age-wise comparision or a time-period comparision.
>
> > Grass and Clay looks neck and neck.
>
> > But how can you possibly say it is pretty close on HC? Post-2005,
> > Federer, despite being 5 years older than Nadal, despite gradually
> > falling off his peak, has actually made almost twice (7 vs 4) as many
> > HC GS finals than Nadal. This actually supports my point that Federer
> > has been more impressive in his mastery of different surfaces/slams
> > than Nadal.
>
> I didn't say it's close on HC. I said it's close overall (17 slams
> finals vs. 15). Nadal can still close the gap on grass/HC, extend it
> on clay.

Dishonest goal-post moving from you again. First you cherrypick the
starting point of the period of comparison: post 2005, starting 2006?
Why? We don't know. Now you want to extend the ending point for Nadal,
again quite arbitrarily, in a cherry picking manner? Why? You are
beginning to look like another douche to me.

> > > Well, you should compare Nadal's HC performance to Fed's clay. Both
> > > are their respective weakest surfaces.
>
> > Why? To intentionally make Nadal look better and Federer look worse
> > using an apple vs orange comparison? That what you want? Sorry, not
> > interested.
>
> Adaptability also includes the ability to improve/change your game
> across surfaces as you go along. And Nadal did that better than Fed.
> Starting off as primarily a clay-courter, Nadal caught on to grass,
> then made the transition quite well on to HC. If you want to say that
> Fed's game is more out-of-the-box-ready than Nadal's across different
> surfaces, I agree.

That has been my point all along !! You are an insufferable time-
waster.

> > Look, if you enter a draw in a grand slam, you should be responsible
> > for your results. "This is not my best surface" is a kind of excuse
> > more than anything. Of course, this type of excuse-making appeals to
> > you when it comes to Sampras. We have seen this before.
>
> What excuses regarding Sampras ? That he was past his peak in 2001
> when he was thrashed by Hewitt ? You think that's an excuse ?
>
> Or you have a problem that the stats show that Sampras didn't serve
> with his usual venom in that F ?
>
> Have you ever caught me making excuses for Sampras' losses before
> 2000 ?
>

I don't care. Sampras is in the past. All I know is that you are still
hung up on him and want to talk about him and his playing style and
1990s tennis in general.

>
>
> > > > If you think Nadal's HC game is in any way comparable to Federer's in
> > > > terms of consistency at Grand Slam level, then I doubt your tennis
> > > > analysis skills.
>
> > > > > And he is
> > > > > probably going to make a few more on multiple surfaces by the time
> > > > > he's done.
>
> > > > I don't think he is going to catch Federer. Not on HC, not overall.
>
> > > Maybe so. But still at least 4 finals on each surface dispels any
> > > doubts about Nadal's adaptability.
>
> > That was not the point. Federer has been much more impressive than
> > Nadal in terms of adaptability. The results are proof. That's the
> > point.
>
> I disagree. See my point about Nadal slowly improving on all surfaces.

Yes, which is not that impressive.

> Fed was already good on multiple surfaces.

Exactly! This is much more impressive. Federer has more natural talent
and his game is much more naturally adaptable to different surfaces.
Hence he is a much superior tennis talent than Nadal.

> Beyond that, he didn't
> adapt much. For example, Nadal adapted from beating Fed only on clay
> to beating Fed on grass and then beating Fed on HC. Isn't that
> adaptable ? Was Fed able to do the same ?

What do you mean? Federer reached 10 GS finals in a row ! He missed
the NCYGS thrice by one match. That is the ultimate proof of surface
adapatability. The gold standard. Can Nadal ever match that?

[arnab.z@gmail]

More correcty, Federer is an all surface specialist. His game is so
good that he can adapt easily to any surface.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On Apr 25, 5:09 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 3:22 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nah. Federer's clay pedigree is right up there when he bothers. He was
> > the only person to beat Nadal multiple times on clay, albeit in the
> > Masters level, smack in the middle of Nadal's insane clay streak. He
> > actually held 2 matchpoints in Rome against Nadal. Which indicates
> > Federer is a pretty bad-ass claycourter himself, if he wants it hard.
> > A non-peak Federer beat a red hot Djokovic in FO just the last year,
> > where Djokovic was fresh off multiple clay wins against Nadal. That is
> > also an indication of Federer's abilities on clay.
>
> Beat Nadal multiple times on clay?  Federer beat Nadal on clay exactly
> two times out of 14 matches.

So? He finished as the runner-up in all those Masters and FOs. Which
means he is pretty damn good claycourter himself.

> Djokovic in one year has already defeated
> Nadal on clay the same number of times as Federer.

And Federer beat that same Djokovic in a clay slam event. Smack in the
middle of Djokovic's peakity peak run. What does that tell you? When
Federer's game clicks, he can beat even the Nadal-beater on clay. He
is a pretty damn good claycourter himself.

> Federer is an
> overall talent on all surfaces but I am sorry, when it comes to
> defeating Nadal on clay, Federer failed.

That's not the point. The point is whether Federer is a very good
claycourter himself or not. All evidence indicates that for the period
of 2005-2011, he has been the second best claycourter behind Nadal.
Nadal is obviously the gold standard on clay, way ahead of Federer.
But Federer is himself very, very good on clay.

> It does not really matter
> because he was so good on HC and grass. No player can play equally
> well on all surfaces or if they can it is very rare. They always have
> a weakest surface.

Federer could have shown equally good results on clay as well if Nadal
were even 5% off his game, or if there was a claycourt specialist who
was anything but the greatest claycourter of all time. Federer would
have sweeped all those clay masters and 3 or 4 FOs. Yes, at his peak/
prime, Federer was a monster. Only a Nadal could have stopped him even
on clay.

> And yes I do think this clay court generation is weak.

I disagree. There is no proof. This line of thinking is as
unconvincing as the more general clown era theory propagated by
various species Federer haters. You are not one of them, but you are
making the same mistake I think.

[jlia...@gmail.com]

Since Nadal was always better than Federer then why couldn't he win AO and USO that year ? It is interesting that someone who was better could not defend a single non clay court grand slam title and someone worse was able to win 6 wimbledon and 5 USO.

[Whisper]

On 25/04/2012 7:01 PM, jlia...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:49:22 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
>> On 25/04/2012 8:23 AM, Shakes wrote:
>>>>>> I don't think he is going to catch Federer. Not on HC, not overall.
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe so. But still at least 4 finals on each surface dispels any
>>>>> doubts about Nadal's adaptability.
>>>>
>>>> That was not the point. Federer has been much more impressive than
>>>> Nadal in terms of adaptability. The results are proof. That's the
>>>> point.
>>>
>>> I disagree. See my point about Nadal slowly improving on all surfaces.
>>> Fed was already good on multiple surfaces. Beyond that, he didn't
>>> adapt much. For example, Nadal adapted from beating Fed only on clay
>>> to beating Fed on grass and then beating Fed on HC. Isn't that
>>> adaptable ? Was Fed able to do the same ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Rafa was always better than Fed. Their very 1st meeting was not clay

>> but HC. Fed was dominant no.1 in 2004& won 3 slams + everything else,

>> yet teen Rafa kicked his butt 63 63.
>
> Since Nadal was always better than Federer then why couldn't he win AO and USO that year ? It is interesting that someone who was better could not defend a single non clay court grand slam title and someone worse was able to win 6 wimbledon and 5 USO.

Someone who is better than another shouldn't lose to him that many times
on all surfaces & cry.

[bob]

yep. but when i said this many times, you disagreed? wondering why now
the flip flop towad me? see, 2 can play at that game. :-)

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:53:23 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:

>On Apr 25, 8:47 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 25/04/2012 2:52 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 24, 12:26 pm, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> >> On Apr 24, 3:58 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>>
>> >> Federer is a clay court specialist though, he grew up on the stuff.
>>
>> > Federer is no clay court specialist and
>>
>> A 5-time FO finalist is not a clay specialist?  Now I've heard it all.
>
>Was Borg grass specialist (5 wimb titles and one final in a row).?

borg was a clay specialist who was so much better overall than
opposition, plus so focused and motivated to win wimbledon, plus a
time post aussies/pre mcenroe, that he was able to win the 5
wimbledons.

>Was Connors grass specialist (4 grass slam titles + 5 grass slams
>runnerups).?
>Is Nadal grass specialist (2 wimb titles + 3 runnerups).?

don't fall into the "results only" trap. a guy can be good enough
overall to still win on a surface that is totally unsuited to his game
and style.

bob

[bob]

i answered these for you. this was a perfect example to say what i've
said all along about specialists and guys good enough to beat field
even though game not suited to surface.

read some of my hundreds of posts on this topic over the yrs, i nkow
you're aware of my psition.

bob

[Iceberg]

because the entire media at the time had told the clowns to go all out
attack on Nadal and hand almost every match to the 'invincible' Fed.
Denko 12+ games in a row at the AO after winning the YEC says it all.

[MBDunc]

I have never denied that 90:ies offered conditions for specialists.
And yet still best of those specialists still had some succee outside
of their "ideal" play condition frame.

However you can go on infinitum whether today's all-a-round players
would have made mincemeat of them or not.

Same applies to past eras as well. Laver was a prototype of all-a-
round player who could play at every venue.

.mikko

[MBDunc]

On Apr 25, 1:59 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:53:23 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>

> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 25, 8:47 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> On 25/04/2012 2:52 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 24, 12:26 pm, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 24, 3:58 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> >> >> Federer is a clay court specialist though, he grew up on the stuff.
>
> >> > Federer is no clay court specialist and
>
> >> A 5-time FO finalist is not a clay specialist?  Now I've heard it all.
>
> >Was Borg grass specialist (5 wimb titles and one final in a row).?
>
> borg was a clay specialist who was so much better overall than
> opposition, plus so focused and motivated to win wimbledon, plus a
> time post aussies/pre mcenroe, that he was able to win the 5
> wimbledons.

Well...isn't this a same case as with cases when Nadal does well on
grass and Fed on clay?
They are all just great, right?

> >Was Connors grass specialist (4 grass slam titles + 5 grass slams
> >runnerups).?
> >Is Nadal grass specialist (2 wimb titles + 3 runnerups).?
>
> don't fall into the "results only" trap. a guy can be good enough
> overall to still win on a surface that is totally unsuited to his game
> and style.

Connors beat peak Mac at Wimbledon final. He had to have some game? Or
did he just do what Fed did on clay? Got results but with obsolete
clay game? Or what?
Nadal beat Fed at Wimb final, no good?

.mikko

[Iceberg]

On Apr 24, 8:22 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 24, 11:46 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 1:13 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > On Apr 24, 10:52 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 24, 12:26 pm, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 24, 3:58 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > > > > Federer is a clay court specialist though, he grew up on the stuff.
>

> > > > Federer is no clay court specialist and Nadal is miles ahead of
> > > > Federer on clay  Djokovic,Tsonga and Gasquet grew up playing on clay
> > > > as well. Are they clay court specialists?  (rolls eyes)
>
> > > Federer is by far the second best clay courter in the 2000s. Right
> > > after Rafa. If all time best claycourter Rafa weren't there, Federer
> > > would have won 3/4 more FOs in another era.
>
> > > It's silly to name Federer a specialist of this or that surface. He is
> > > in his own category. He is too talented to be surface dependent. The
> > > results are proof.
>
> > Federer would only be number two in the 2000's because the clay court
> > compeition aside from Nadal is nil.
>

> I don't think that's the case. Yours is basically the clay version of
> Whimpyboob's "clown era" theory.
>

> > Put some tougher clay court
> > competiton in there and I don't think Federer would do as well.
>

> Nah. Federer's clay pedigree is right up there when he bothers. He was
> the only person to beat Nadal multiple times on clay, albeit in the
> Masters level, smack in the middle of Nadal's insane clay streak. He
> actually held 2 matchpoints in Rome against Nadal. Which indicates
> Federer is a pretty bad-ass claycourter himself, if he wants it hard.
> A non-peak Federer beat a red hot Djokovic in FO just the last year,
> where Djokovic was fresh off multiple clay wins against Nadal. That is
> also an indication of Federer's abilities on clay.
>

> > But,
> > you are right that Federer is talented on any surface, it is just that
> > clay is his weakest surface and HC and grass are his best surfaces.
> > The fact that he grew up on clay means nothing.
>

> Yeah, I don't think it has anything with him growing up on clay. He's
> just naturally talented. His game is easily adaptable on any surface.

course it matters that he grew up on clay, Murray said in his latest
interview that's the reason he finds clay the most difficult surface,
it's a shame cos Murray would've probably developed the perfect game
if he'd grown up on clay, ah well. Fed's 2011 FO performance is the
best clay performance of his career, showing he's getting better on
his normal surface.

[Court_1]

Yes, that is correct. A 5 time FO "finalist" is not a clay specialist.
A person who has won 73 singles titles in his career and only 9 of
those were on clay is NOT a clay court specialist. Not even close.
Compare that with Nadal who has won over 70% of his titles on clay.
THAT is a clay court specialist. Nadal had zero serious clay rivals in
his career. If Federer is the closest clay court specialist behind
Nadal according to some people, that is pretty scary stuff.

Don't talk nonsense that Federer is a clay court specialist. They are
a special breed of players and Federer would never be considered one
of them.

[Court_1]

You just contradicted yourself in your two last posts. If you say
Federer is a clay court specialist and then you say aren't the
surfaces all the same today, how can Federer be a clay court
specialist?

Answer: The surfaces while more similar to each other than in the
past still have differences between them. Otherwise if that were not
true, Nadal would not have 70% of his titles won on clay and Djokovic
would not have 22 out of his 30 singles titles won on HC, or Federer
would have more than 9 clay titles.

[Court_1]

But he adapted less easily to clay!

[Court_1]

On Apr 25, 4:51 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So? He finished as the runner-up in all those Masters and FOs. Which
> means he is pretty damn good claycourter himself.

Runner up does not count in tennis when you are a great champion. Only
wins matter at that level. Nobody cares who the runner up is aside
from the runner up him/herself perhaps.

> And Federer beat that same Djokovic in a clay slam event. Smack in the
> middle of Djokovic's peakity peak run. What does that tell you? When
> Federer's game clicks, he can beat even the Nadal-beater on clay. He
> is a pretty damn good claycourter himself.

Federer is a true tennis talent and yes he played a brilliant match
against Djokovic at the FO last year but one match on clay does not
make a career. Clay has still been his weakest surface even when his
game clicks. Plus he did not actually go on to win the FO against
Nadal remember?

>
> That's not the point. The point is whether Federer is a very good
> claycourter himself or not. All evidence indicates that for the period
> of 2005-2011, he has been the second best claycourter behind Nadal.
> Nadal is obviously the gold standard on clay, way ahead of Federer.
> But Federer is himself very, very good on clay.

Federer is good on clay but not "great." He is great on HC and grass.

> Federer could have shown equally good results on clay as well if Nadal
> were even 5% off his game, or if there was a claycourt specialist who
> was anything but the greatest claycourter of all time. Federer would
> have sweeped all those clay masters and 3 or 4 FOs. Yes, at his peak/
> prime, Federer was a monster. Only a Nadal could have stopped him even
> on clay.

Could have? You sound like Whisper or Bob! :) Who cares about could
have? My point is there were no clay court specialists in the Federer/
Nadal era except Nadal and he just happens to be the GOAT of clay or
one FO away from it, so nobody can compare to him on that surface,
even Federer. Yes if it were not for Nadal Federer would have won many
more clay titles but it would still be by far his weakest surface.

> I disagree. There is no proof. This line of thinking is as
> unconvincing as the more general clown era theory propagated by
> various species Federer haters. You are not one of them, but you are
> making the same mistake I think.

We will have to agree to disagree then because to me this era was very
weak on clay court specialists. To me the top three (or really the top
two) are the two of the strongest players of any era but below them,
the current top 10 on down are very weak. All of the super talent
resides in the top three more so than in most past generations. JMO.

[Court_1]

Murray? Would you stop using Murray as an example for greatness in
the sport of tennis. If clay is his weakest surface fine, but why
hasn't he won a slam on his stronger surfaces--i.e. HC and grass?
Once again, here is the reality for Murray for those who missed it the
first 100 times: He is a slamlesss wonder currently and until he wins
a slam he should not be used for the purposes of comparison to
Federer, Nadal or even Djokovic. His name should not even be used in
the same sentence with those three players unless you are pointing out
Murray's failures. Lesson over. ;)

[Iceberg]

Fed is obviously a clay court specialist :
1) he grew up on clay
2) he's won 9 clay court titles
3) he's been finalist at FO 5 times
4) he played better on clay last year than anywhere else
5) case proven

[Court_1]

Trust me, your case is far from proven. In fact you are so off the
mark, it is comical.

Growing up on clay makes one a cc specialist? LOL, how dumb is that?
I ask you then you isn't Djokovic a cc specialist for example? Growing
up on a surface does not automatically mean you would have your best
record as a pro on that surface.

He won 9 clay court titles out of 73! That is 12%, a score which I am
sure you are very familiar with from your exam days! Yep, that sure
proves he is a cc specialist! (NOT)

He has been a finalist at the FO 5 times. Big deal. Did he win the FO
5 itmes? The only time you can be considered a successful clay court
specialist is if you actually win the FO multliple times and most of
your titles come on clay as opposed to HC or grass.

Playing better on clay last year in one match means he is a CC
specialist? I am so glad you are not a witness in a court case. They
would laugh you out of there.

Your mark for this test was 0 out of 4. You fail! Bye!

[Shakes]

On Apr 25, 1:40 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 4:23 am, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I didn't say it's close on HC. I said it's close overall (17 slams
> > finals vs. 15). Nadal can still close the gap on grass/HC, extend it
> > on clay.
>
> Dishonest goal-post moving from you again. First you cherrypick the
> starting point of the period of comparison: post 2005, starting 2006?
> Why? We don't know. Now you want to extend the ending point for Nadal,
> again quite arbitrarily, in a cherry picking manner? Why? You are
> beginning to look like another douche to me.
>

What goal posts ? So you want to count Fed's performance at his
current age to Nadal's performance at his current age ? Even though
Nadal is 5 yrs younger and can still add to his tally ? What about all
your rants when Whisper/Bob were saying way bac in 2005/2006 that Fed
had a long way to go to equal Sampras, and you (and others) were
saying that we should do an age-wise comparision ? That won't do.

>
> > Adaptability also includes the ability to improve/change your game
> > across surfaces as you go along. And Nadal did that better than Fed.
> > Starting off as primarily a clay-courter, Nadal caught on to grass,
> > then made the transition quite well on to HC. If you want to say that
> > Fed's game is more out-of-the-box-ready than Nadal's across different
> > surfaces, I agree.
>
> That has been my point all along !! You are an insufferable time-
> waster.
>

Well, that does not come under adaptability. Adapatability means
ability to adapt, to change. In that sense, Nadal is better than Fed.
It's one thing to have a game that's, y default, suited to all
surfaces; and quite another to improve/change/adapt your game as your
career progresses.

>
> > What excuses regarding Sampras ? That he was past his peak in 2001
> > when he was thrashed by Hewitt ? You think that's an excuse ?
>
> > Or you have a problem that the stats show that Sampras didn't serve
> > with his usual venom in that F ?
>
> > Have you ever caught me making excuses for Sampras' losses before
> > 2000 ?
>
> I don't care. Sampras is in the past. All I know is that you are still
> hung up on him and want to talk about him and his playing style and
> 1990s tennis in general.
>
>

Then why did you bring him up in a post when I didn't mention him at
all ?
>
>
>
\

>
> > I disagree. See my point about Nadal slowly improving on all surfaces.
>
> Yes, which is not that impressive.
>

WHAT ???? That's not impressive to you ?? Are you serious ? Ok, how
many clay courters can you think of who also went on to win Wim, then
AO, then USO ?

> > Fed was already good on multiple surfaces.
>
> Exactly! This is much more impressive. Federer has more natural talent
> and his game is much more naturally adaptable to different surfaces.
> Hence he is a much superior tennis talent than Nadal.
>

You are again using the word adaptable. You should say naturally
suited. Also, can you prove that Fed is more talented than Nadal ? I
think Nadal is a lot more precocious than Fed. He won his 1st slam
much earlier, won the career GS earlier, can still add to his slam
count etc. By the account of results (your favourite measuring stick),
Nadal is not less talented than Fed at all. He's probably more
talented.

> > Beyond that, he didn't
> > adapt much. For example, Nadal adapted from beating Fed only on clay
> > to beating Fed on grass and then beating Fed on HC. Isn't that
> > adaptable ? Was Fed able to do the same ?
>
> What do you mean? Federer reached 10 GS finals in a row ! He missed
> the NCYGS thrice by one match. That is the ultimate proof of surface
> adapatability. The gold standard. Can Nadal ever match that?

Adaptability ? What did Fed change/adapt in his game ? If he had so
much adaptability, how come he couldn't "adapt" to beat Nadal on clay
or HC slams ? Nadal actually adapted to beat Fed at Wim.

Fed may have made all those finals, but Nadal completed the NCYGS at a
younger age than Fed. Seems like Nadal is more adaptable.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On Apr 25, 8:51 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 4:51 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So? He finished as the runner-up in all those Masters and FOs. Which
> > means he is pretty damn good claycourter himself.
>
> Runner up does not count in tennis when you are a great champion.

That's too restrictive. Of course Runner up matters. It matters when
we are determining how good a clay courter someone is. All those
runner up finishes mean Federer was a very good claycourter. Just not
as good as Nadal. Then again, peak Nadal on clay is miles ahead of any
other clay player in history.

> Only
> wins matter at that level. Nobody cares who the runner up is aside
> from the runner up him/herself perhaps.

That's not true. That's a stereotypical statement. If you want to
objectively analyze someone's performance/capability on a specific
surface, you should care about a metric such as final appearances.
It's a valid metric, a valid piece of information. You cannot just
swat it away like that with stereotyped statements.

> > And Federer beat that same Djokovic in a clay slam event. Smack in the
> > middle of Djokovic's peakity peak run. What does that tell you? When
> > Federer's game clicks, he can beat even the Nadal-beater on clay. He
> > is a pretty damn good claycourter himself.
>
> Federer is a true tennis talent and yes he played a brilliant match
> against Djokovic at the FO last year but one match on clay does not
> make a career.

"True tennis talent" is too vague a statement. Federer beat Djokovic
because he played better than Nadal-beating Djokovic on clay. He is
very good on clay.

> Clay has still been his weakest surface even when his
> game clicks.

That only appears so because of Nadal. Take Nadal out of the equation,
and he probably wins the FO 4 more times. Soderling took Nadal out,
and voila, Federer clinches the title. Then he doesn't appear so weak
on clay anymore. Of course, this is a big if. But Nadal is really a
monster on clay, better than all the so-called "clay specialists" we
have seen in the previous eras. His topspin, his athleticism, his
court coverage, etc are unprecedented. And Federer only came up short
against him.

> Plus he did not actually go on to win the FO against
> Nadal remember?

Yes, only Nadal stopped Federer on clay. Which is why I am saying
Federer is a pretty good claycourter himself, only Nadal is ahead of
him.

>
> > That's not the point. The point is whether Federer is a very good
> > claycourter himself or not. All evidence indicates that for the period
> > of 2005-2011, he has been the second best claycourter behind Nadal.
> > Nadal is obviously the gold standard on clay, way ahead of Federer.
> > But Federer is himself very, very good on clay.
>
> Federer is good on clay but not "great." He is great on HC and grass.

No, correction: Federer is great on clay (5 finals + 1 win), just
unlucky to be playing in the Nadal era. He is the greatest on HC (9
slams; a record). He is second-greatest on grass (6 slams).

> > Federer could have shown equally good results on clay as well if Nadal
> > were even 5% off his game, or if there was a claycourt specialist who
> > was anything but the greatest claycourter of all time. Federer would
> > have sweeped all those clay masters and 3 or 4 FOs. Yes, at his peak/
> > prime, Federer was a monster. Only a Nadal could have stopped him even
> > on clay.
>
> Could have?  You sound like Whisper or Bob! :)  Who cares about could
> have?

Please. By "could have" I mean "Only a all-time greatest on clay guy
like Nadal was able to stop Federer from racking up 3/4 FOs". What's
so difficult to understand here?

> My point is there were no clay court specialists in the Federer/
> Nadal era

Sure, but what does it mean to be a claycourt specialist? Does it make
any sense anymore? Before, a hard court or fast surface specialist
used to be a clay handicap, and vice versa. But those circumstances
don't exist anymore. The pro tennis players play a different tennis
now. It's hybrid kind of tennis, inspired by Federer, where you
gradually minimize your surface-specific disadvantages and hone your
surface-independent skills and become sort of a super player who is at
ease on all surfaces. Nadal has gone through that evolution himself.
He started as a clay specialist, but then gradually he adapted his
game to faster surfaces. He was inspired by Federer, of course. Same
goes for Djokovic. In a sense, Federer changed the paradigm. He showed
that you do not need to rely on this or that technique or strategy to
excel on a specific surface. He changed the play tennis was played.
And by turn, he inspired the next generation players to do the same,
in order for them to catch up to him or even surpass him.

> except Nadal and he just happens to be the GOAT of clay or
> one FO away from it, so nobody can compare to him on that surface,
> even Federer. Yes if it were not for Nadal Federer would have won many
> more clay titles but it would still be by far his weakest surface.

I don't agree with this interpretation at all. Nadal won all his clay
tournaments fair and square. There was no lack of mythical clay
specialists or whatever. In fact, it doesn't make any sense to talk
about clay specialists in the 1990s sense, because today all the good
clay players also regularly do well on other surfaces, sooner or
later. And Federer was/remains a great claycourter himself. So, I
disagree with you on all the points, basically.

> > I disagree. There is no proof. This line of thinking is as
> > unconvincing as the more general clown era theory propagated by
> > various species Federer haters. You are not one of them, but you are
> > making the same mistake I think.
>
> We will have to agree to disagree then because to me this era was very
> weak on clay court specialists. To me the top three (or really the top
> two) are the two of the strongest players of any era but below them,
> the current top 10 on down are very weak. All of the super talent
> resides in the top three more so than in most past generations. JMO.

Yeah, I disagree.

[arnab.z@gmail]

No, Federer is not a clay court specialist. Clay court specialist is a
1990s term which means the guy is great on clay, but bad on other
surfaces. This doesn't apply to Federer. Federer is actually better on
other surfaces. So no, Federer is not a clay specialist.

What Federer is, is a great claycourt player. Overall, he is the BOAT
and the GOAT. His game is so good and versatile that he can be great
on surface (clay) or the greatest (on HC) or the second greatest (on
grass) on a given surface.

[arnab.z@gmail]

I think the term clay court specialist need to be handled from a
different angle. Look at my definition above. A claycourt specialist
is someone who is brilliant on clay, but a handicap on other surfaces.
Obviously Federer doesn't correspond to this type of player. So, he is
not a clay court specialist. Case closed. No need to go through
elaborate statistical details. Federer, by definition, is not a clay
court specialist.

Nadal, at the beginning of his career (2004-2006), was definitely a
clay court specialist. His successes were heavily clay-based. His
performance on other surfaces were comparatively poor. He couldn't
reach deep into the draws of AO or USO despite being ranked second.
Obviously, he has evolved since, inspired by his desire to match/
overcome Federer.

Federer's situation is different. From the very beginning, he was at
ease on all surfaces. No Nadal-like evolution was necessary on his
part. He was winning grass, clay and hardcourt titles all equally at
ease, at the same time. Federer is the boat, so he is different. One
cannot label Federer as this or that specialist. That's silly.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On Apr 25, 10:53 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Beyond that, he didn't
> > > adapt much. For example, Nadal adapted from beating Fed only on clay
> > > to beating Fed on grass and then beating Fed on HC. Isn't that
> > > adaptable ? Was Fed able to do the same ?
>
> > What do you mean? Federer reached 10 GS finals in a row ! He missed
> > the NCYGS thrice by one match. That is the ultimate proof of surface
> > adapatability. The gold standard. Can Nadal ever match that?
>
> Adaptability ? What did Fed change/adapt in his game ? If he had so
> much adaptability, how come he couldn't "adapt" to beat Nadal on clay
> or HC slams ?

I am not talking about player-specific adaptability, but surface-
specific adaptability. Federer has been consistently good on all
surfaces, making semis or more in all grand slams for the longest of
time. That is the adaptability I am talking about.

> Nadal actually adapted to beat Fed at Wim.

That doesn't make sense. We are not talking about adapting to beat a
specific rival on a specific surface. I am talking about it in a more
general sense, being consistently good on all surfaces, that is
reaching semis, finals, winning, etc. consistently over a long period
of time. Federer is the only player to do that for a very long period
of 8/9 years. Nadal has been doing it since 2009 and Djokovic from
about late 2010, but let them do it for 8/9 years straight and then we
will talk.

> Fed may have made all those finals, but Nadal completed the NCYGS at a
> younger age than Fed. Seems like Nadal is more adaptable.

I am not measuring adaptability by just slam wins. It's consistent
deep runs of the draw across the surfaces. Nadal has reached that
level of consistency only very recently. Federer has been doing this
since 2004. For a period of 8 or more years. Nadal is nowhere close to
that.

[jdeluise]

On 25-Apr-2012, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nadal completed the NCYGS at a
> younger age than Fed.

He did? Wow, I hadn't heard bout that.

[arnab.z@gmail]

Actually that's not true. three of the first five Masters Series
finals by Federer were on clay, if you can believe it. Hamburg 2002,
Rome 2003, Hamburg 2004. And he won the two Hamburg titles.

So Federer was a quite good clay player from the beginning. Quite on
par with other surfaces.

I don't think surface matters for Federer. He has an effective all-
surface game.

[KH]

Is that you, Whisper? Again responding in his place.

[KH]

Whisper, is that you? Again responding as 'I' to a question posed
to Whisper.

[Shakes]

On Apr 25, 11:03 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25-Apr-2012, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nadal completed the NCYGS at a
> > younger age than Fed.
>
> He did?  Wow, I hadn't heard bout that.

Sorry, my bad. I meant CGS, of course.

[Shakes]

On Apr 25, 10:02 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 8:51 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > My point is there were no clay court specialists in the Federer/
> > Nadal era
>
> Sure, but what does it mean to be a claycourt specialist? Does it make
> any sense anymore? Before, a hard court or fast surface specialist
> used to be a clay handicap, and vice versa. But those circumstances
> don't exist anymore. The pro tennis players play a different tennis
> now. It's hybrid kind of tennis, inspired by Federer, where you
> gradually minimize your surface-specific disadvantages and hone your
> surface-independent skills and become sort of a super player who is at
> ease on all surfaces. Nadal has gone through that evolution himself.
> He started as a clay specialist, but then gradually he adapted his
> game to faster surfaces. He was inspired by Federer, of course. Same
> goes for Djokovic. In a sense, Federer changed the paradigm. He showed
> that you do not need to rely on this or that technique or strategy to
> excel on a specific surface. He changed the play tennis was played.
> And by turn, he inspired the next generation players to do the same,
> in order for them to catch up to him or even surpass him.
>

Fed was neither the first nor the only player to do well on all
surfaces. How about Borg ? Borg made 6 FO Finals, 6 Wim F's, 3 USO F's
(3 on HC, 4 total). How about Lendl ? Lendl made 11 HC F's, 3 grass
F's, 5 clay F's. How about Mats Wilander ? Wilander made 5 clay F's, 3
grass F's, 3 HC F's.

And these were in an era when the surfaces were really diverse and
there were a lot more "specialists".

[Shakes]

On Apr 24, 6:58 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:

> On Apr 24, 3:23 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I disagree. See my point about Nadal slowly improving on all surfaces.

> > Fed was already good on multiple surfaces. Beyond that, he didn't

> > adapt much. For example, Nadal adapted from beating Fed only on clay
> > to beating Fed on grass and then beating Fed on HC. Isn't that

> > adaptable ? Was Fed able to do the same ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Well, let's see... he won Wimbledon (grass) in 2003, AO/USO (hard) in
> 2004 and FO (clay) in 2009... so ya... pretty much in terms of the
> majors... though they aren't everything...
>
> P

Sure, but my context was about adapting, improving on different
surfaces.

[jdeluise]

On 25-Apr-2012, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sure, but my context was about adapting, improving on different
> surfaces.

Did he really adapt? Or just improve? It's not as if he took on an
overwhelming S/V tactic at Wimbledon (he did it once at the W 08 final).
From what I saw he played pretty much the same safe, hyper-defensive,
counter-attacking game he always plays everywhere.

[Shakes]

On Apr 25, 10:30 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 10:53 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Beyond that, he didn't
> > > > adapt much. For example, Nadal adapted from beating Fed only on clay
> > > > to beating Fed on grass and then beating Fed on HC. Isn't that
> > > > adaptable ? Was Fed able to do the same ?
>
> > > What do you mean? Federer reached 10 GS finals in a row ! He missed
> > > the NCYGS thrice by one match. That is the ultimate proof of surface
> > > adapatability. The gold standard. Can Nadal ever match that?
>
> > Adaptability ? What did Fed change/adapt in his game ? If he had so
> > much adaptability, how come he couldn't "adapt" to beat Nadal on clay
> > or HC slams ?
>
> I am not talking about player-specific adaptability, but surface-
> specific adaptability. Federer has been consistently good on all
> surfaces, making semis or more in all grand slams for the longest of
> time. That is the adaptability I am talking about.
>

I don't think that's adaptability. Granted, Fed had a game that was
naturally good enough to do well across the surfaces. But he didn't
actually "change/adapt" his game from 2004 to now. He didn't make any
surface specific adaptations. His core game is the same.

Nadal, OTOH, actually did tweak his game. He went from falling all
over the place on grass in 2005, to making the F in 2006, to come
close to upsetting Fed in 2007, to actually winning in 2008.

So, Nadal's adaptability was to not just to beat Fed, but more surface
specific.

Further, if Fed was really so adaptable; If, like you claim, he was
2-3 times talented than every player before him in the history of the
sport, if he's an all-time great in every tennis skill you can think
of (serves, volleys, movement, returns, creativity, offense, defense),
how come none of these helped him to keep the lid on Nadal even
outside of FO ?

> >  Nadal actually adapted to beat Fed at Wim.
>
> That doesn't make sense. We are not talking about adapting to beat a
> specific rival on a specific surface. I am talking about it in a more
> general sense, being consistently good on all surfaces, that is
> reaching semis, finals, winning, etc. consistently over a long period
> of time. Federer is the only player to do that for a very long period
> of 8/9 years. Nadal has been doing it since 2009 and Djokovic from
> about late 2010, but let them do it for 8/9 years straight and then we
> will talk.
>

Nadal didn't "adapt" to beat Fed on a specific surface. He had the
game to beat Fed on clay/HC right from the beginning. He actually
adapted to do well on the different surfaces, irrespective of Fed. If
his adaptability was restricted to beating Fed, he wouldn't have gone
and made those Wim Fs or those USO F's. Nadal improved his game,
tweaked it so that it took him from just being a clay-court specialist
to doing well on all surfaces.

> > Fed may have made all those finals, but Nadal completed the NCYGS at a
> > younger age than Fed. Seems like Nadal is more adaptable.
>
> I am not measuring adaptability by just slam wins. It's consistent
> deep runs of the draw across the surfaces. Nadal has reached that
> level of consistency only very recently. Federer has been doing this
> since 2004. For a period of 8 or more years. Nadal is nowhere close to
> that.

He doesn't have to be if he can get to 16 across different surfaces
even if it means he gets to fewer number of slam F's. Age is on his
side.

[Shakes]

On Apr 25, 12:41 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would say he adapted. Sure he didn't adapt like Lendl did by going
the S/V way at Wim - playing out of his comfort zone. But he did make
minor adaptations - playing closer to the baseline, shortening the
backswing on his shots, changing his play patterns. Given his basic
game, it's hard to improve beyond a certain point. I mean how much
more can you improve your defense or your topspin ?

[bob]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:53:49 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

this is very true, as fed has never really changed at all. he plays
the exact game (a mostly winning game) since i saw him 10+yrs ago.

nadal was the 1 who needed to change (or improve, take your pick) his
game on non-clay surfaces. and he managed to do it.

federer has never changed his game. in fact, even things that i
believe he could do tactically - not even improve, but just tactics -
he won't dare try.

he's stubborn or afraid, not sure. pedro said stubborn, i think
afraid. either way, no matter.

>> > Beyond that, he didn't
>> > adapt much. For example, Nadal adapted from beating Fed only on clay
>> > to beating Fed on grass and then beating Fed on HC. Isn't that
>> > adaptable ? Was Fed able to do the same ?
>>
>> What do you mean? Federer reached 10 GS finals in a row ! He missed
>> the NCYGS thrice by one match. That is the ultimate proof of surface
>> adapatability. The gold standard. Can Nadal ever match that?
>
>Adaptability ? What did Fed change/adapt in his game ? If he had so
>much adaptability, how come he couldn't "adapt" to beat Nadal on clay
>or HC slams ? Nadal actually adapted to beat Fed at Wim.

he changed zilch.

>Fed may have made all those finals, but Nadal completed the NCYGS at a
>younger age than Fed. Seems like Nadal is more adaptable.

another spot on for the shakes.

bob