Mavs<Spurs
07-04-2006, 10:32 PM
So says Ted Robinson of NBC who broadcasts with John McEnroe and Mary Carillo Wimbledon.
He says that if it were just a 2 man competition, Nadal has shown that he is better than Federer on all surfaces not just clay because Nadal has a 6-1 record against Federer and because not all of these were on clay and because Nadal has won 4 tournaments that were not on clay so far in his career.
Whether either Federer or Nadal is playing or not, he makes a point of making his viewpoint on this subject extremely well known on every match he broadcasts. Inevitably, he will find a way to bring this into the conversation among the broadcasters. If either of them is playing, he will make this point the main theme of everything he says. This is the prelude to the worship service.
Then, the worship of Nadal begins in earnest by Carillo and Robinson.
Afterwards, no matter how well Roger is playing, it is downplayed.
Then, the benediction is given.
This clown needs to get a grip.
He needs to research Nadal's record at Wimbledon (esp prior to this year), US Open, Australian Open.
He needs to find out how many Grand Slams other than the French Open Nadal has won.
He needs to determine how many finals in these other 3 Grand Slams Nadal has been in (to compare with Federer who got to the semis of the French last year and to the finals of the French this year).
He needs to realize that 3 > 1 (Federer holds the 3 current Grand Slams other than the French and Nadal only currently holds the French - Roger is better on 3 surfaces).
He needs to realize that Fed has won 7 Grand Slams and Nadal has won 2.
He needs to compare the records of Roger and Nadal at Wimbledon. Roger has not lost a match at wimbledon in about 4 years.
He needs to remember that Nadal had to go to 5 sets against a guy who is barely in the top 300.
He needs to contrast the match record of Roger in the 3 grand slams that are not the French with Nadal's records in those tournaments. He could also compare the records in all 4 grand slams of all of them over the last 3 + years.
He needs to realize that had Nadal played well enough to get further in these other 3 grand slams to actually play Federer, Roger would have steamrolled him. But Nadal in these tournaments, unlike Roger in the French, has not actually played well enough to advance far enough to even face Federer in these majors.
He also needs to admit that:
Fed on clay has one or two major weaknesses (high topspin backhands give him problems and he goes for too much on clay)
But Nadal on any surface other than clay has at least 5 weaknesses:
(1) serve, esp 2 serve- very easily attacked
(2) return of serve - he returns it from way behind the baseline, ceding too much court and floating it back (nonaggressive return)
(3) court positioning (he plays way too far behind the baseline in general and cannot half volley from the backcourt as well as Roger to take time away from the opponent)
(4) too much spin on his shots which causes them to stay high and become sitters
(5) he is mediocre at the net at best
It is clear that if Federer were not playing, Nadal would have a hard time making the top 5 since he would not win any other major. Ancic, Lubijic, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick, Blake and so many others are much better in general (ie over a longer period of time, consider their long term records in the majors vs Nadal's) on these surfaces. Nadal is not even in the top 5 on these other surfaces at this point. One day, this might not be true. However, right now it is. And the reason is obvious: their games are more suited for all other surfaces (all other surfaces other than clay) than Nadal's.
So far, Nadal has beaten a 36 year old Agassi playing at 50 % of what he used to be. He hasn't beaten anybody good yet. In fact, until he plays either Hewitt or Baghdatis, he will have easy matches (or they should be).
The fact is that 13 of the 17 tournaments (and both of the Grand Slams) that Nadal has won have been on clay. That is 2/3 of his tournament championships. Most of the tennis season is not spent on clay nor are most of the points awarded for clay. Since Federer grabs all the points on the majors of the other 3 surfaces and Nadal gets a major on clay, nothing is left for the other players who have 3 surfaces where they are superior to Nadal.
2/3 of his championships coming on 1/4 of the surfaces is not a record that supports Robinson's contention.
I like Nadal's game and he is a great player and he might conceivably pass the other players (besides Federer) on these other surfaces in the next year or two. He has a great attitude and works extremely hard. However, it is irritating to hear Robinson claim that Nadal is greater than Federer on surfaces other than clay. It is said in defiance of the facts and of reason. Nadal has not yet earned the right to even be seeded #2 at Wimbledon according to one of his biggest proponents, Mary Carillo when she admitted Nadal was overseeded. Beating a couple of nobody's and the 36 year old, 20 year vet, Agassi with severe health issues (so severe that he is retiring and barely played any tennis over the last year (much less the last couple of years)) is not evidence that even remotely supports these assertions. Some tactical adjustments have been made and successful against these lesser players. However, we have yet to see how successfully he will be able to carry out these adjustments against Hewitt, Baghdatis, Roddick, Blake, Nalbandian, Ancic and Lubijic and especially Federer here at Wimbledon and until Nadal does something much better than most people expect, the comments vastly overstate the reality of Nadal's game on surfaces besides clay.
He says that if it were just a 2 man competition, Nadal has shown that he is better than Federer on all surfaces not just clay because Nadal has a 6-1 record against Federer and because not all of these were on clay and because Nadal has won 4 tournaments that were not on clay so far in his career.
Whether either Federer or Nadal is playing or not, he makes a point of making his viewpoint on this subject extremely well known on every match he broadcasts. Inevitably, he will find a way to bring this into the conversation among the broadcasters. If either of them is playing, he will make this point the main theme of everything he says. This is the prelude to the worship service.
Then, the worship of Nadal begins in earnest by Carillo and Robinson.
Afterwards, no matter how well Roger is playing, it is downplayed.
Then, the benediction is given.
This clown needs to get a grip.
He needs to research Nadal's record at Wimbledon (esp prior to this year), US Open, Australian Open.
He needs to find out how many Grand Slams other than the French Open Nadal has won.
He needs to determine how many finals in these other 3 Grand Slams Nadal has been in (to compare with Federer who got to the semis of the French last year and to the finals of the French this year).
He needs to realize that 3 > 1 (Federer holds the 3 current Grand Slams other than the French and Nadal only currently holds the French - Roger is better on 3 surfaces).
He needs to realize that Fed has won 7 Grand Slams and Nadal has won 2.
He needs to compare the records of Roger and Nadal at Wimbledon. Roger has not lost a match at wimbledon in about 4 years.
He needs to remember that Nadal had to go to 5 sets against a guy who is barely in the top 300.
He needs to contrast the match record of Roger in the 3 grand slams that are not the French with Nadal's records in those tournaments. He could also compare the records in all 4 grand slams of all of them over the last 3 + years.
He needs to realize that had Nadal played well enough to get further in these other 3 grand slams to actually play Federer, Roger would have steamrolled him. But Nadal in these tournaments, unlike Roger in the French, has not actually played well enough to advance far enough to even face Federer in these majors.
He also needs to admit that:
Fed on clay has one or two major weaknesses (high topspin backhands give him problems and he goes for too much on clay)
But Nadal on any surface other than clay has at least 5 weaknesses:
(1) serve, esp 2 serve- very easily attacked
(2) return of serve - he returns it from way behind the baseline, ceding too much court and floating it back (nonaggressive return)
(3) court positioning (he plays way too far behind the baseline in general and cannot half volley from the backcourt as well as Roger to take time away from the opponent)
(4) too much spin on his shots which causes them to stay high and become sitters
(5) he is mediocre at the net at best
It is clear that if Federer were not playing, Nadal would have a hard time making the top 5 since he would not win any other major. Ancic, Lubijic, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick, Blake and so many others are much better in general (ie over a longer period of time, consider their long term records in the majors vs Nadal's) on these surfaces. Nadal is not even in the top 5 on these other surfaces at this point. One day, this might not be true. However, right now it is. And the reason is obvious: their games are more suited for all other surfaces (all other surfaces other than clay) than Nadal's.
So far, Nadal has beaten a 36 year old Agassi playing at 50 % of what he used to be. He hasn't beaten anybody good yet. In fact, until he plays either Hewitt or Baghdatis, he will have easy matches (or they should be).
The fact is that 13 of the 17 tournaments (and both of the Grand Slams) that Nadal has won have been on clay. That is 2/3 of his tournament championships. Most of the tennis season is not spent on clay nor are most of the points awarded for clay. Since Federer grabs all the points on the majors of the other 3 surfaces and Nadal gets a major on clay, nothing is left for the other players who have 3 surfaces where they are superior to Nadal.
2/3 of his championships coming on 1/4 of the surfaces is not a record that supports Robinson's contention.
I like Nadal's game and he is a great player and he might conceivably pass the other players (besides Federer) on these other surfaces in the next year or two. He has a great attitude and works extremely hard. However, it is irritating to hear Robinson claim that Nadal is greater than Federer on surfaces other than clay. It is said in defiance of the facts and of reason. Nadal has not yet earned the right to even be seeded #2 at Wimbledon according to one of his biggest proponents, Mary Carillo when she admitted Nadal was overseeded. Beating a couple of nobody's and the 36 year old, 20 year vet, Agassi with severe health issues (so severe that he is retiring and barely played any tennis over the last year (much less the last couple of years)) is not evidence that even remotely supports these assertions. Some tactical adjustments have been made and successful against these lesser players. However, we have yet to see how successfully he will be able to carry out these adjustments against Hewitt, Baghdatis, Roddick, Blake, Nalbandian, Ancic and Lubijic and especially Federer here at Wimbledon and until Nadal does something much better than most people expect, the comments vastly overstate the reality of Nadal's game on surfaces besides clay.