Mavs<Spurs
07-06-2006, 10:19 AM
Over rated.
North Texas beats Little Sisters of the Poor by a score of 58-3 and I am now supposed to think that they can beat UT or USC? What???
Nadal is being over rated. Overrated.
Who has Nadal beaten so far that is in the top 5 or even top 10 on a fast court at a Grand Slam?
Has he beaten Roddick or Ancic or Lubijic or Nalbandian or Davydenko or Hewitt or even a promising young player (promising on grass) like Murray or Gasquet or Berdych?
Not on a fast court at a Grand Slam.
Hewitt > Nadal at Wimbledon since Hewitt has actually won Wimbledon before and best prior to this year (and Nadal has done nothing so far at Wimbledon this year) for Nadal was winning 3 matches.
But Baghdatis > Hewitt and Hewitt > Nadal implies Baghdatis > Nadal.
Baghdatis has beat the top players on fast courts in a Grand Slam. Nadal has not done this. At Australian Open he beat 3 top 5 players in the world on one of their best surfaces and took a set off of Federer.
Don't say but Nadal beat Agassi. Agassi's record for the entire year of 2006 was 0-1. He was winless the entire year prior to Wimbledon. He retires next tournament. That is why he is not a top player any more on any surface.
Some say but Nadal pounded Baghdatis in the summer. So did a lot of other people. Therefore, all of them are also much better than Baghdatis here at Wimbledon. But they aren't. Therefore, the argument proves too much.
Hewitt beat Nadal at Queens. So, by this argument, Hewitt > Nadal and Nadal > Baghdatis (since Nadal pounded Baghdatis in the summer). Hence, Hewitt should have pounded Baghdatis here at Wimbledon. But he didn't. Again, the argument proves too much.
Baghdatis beat 3 top 5 players in the world in a row and got to the Finals and this was against these players on one of their best surfaces. It was unprecedented professional success for the young man. He, therefore, enjoyed the moment and did not take the summer very seriously. He was also injured. However, the summer does not predict his performance at these Grand Slams.
Great defense is ultra important on clay. On clay, great defense is the most important aspect of a successful player's game. On clay, great defense will win matches. One cannot overstate the importance of great defense ON CLAY.
The reason is obvious. To hit a winner on clay requires 5 perfect shots in a row since the ball is so much slower and it is much easier to track down shots that would have been winners on other surfaces.
So, to win at clay, you simply have to avoid hitting many more unforced errors than you do winners. If you have about the same amount of winners as unforced errors, you are in great shape on clay.
That won't get the job done on faster surfaces at majors against great fast court players. The really good fast court players at majors will routinely hit twice as many winners as they do unforced errors.
A great shot or two on a grass court is still going fast enough that it won't be easily tracked down. So, going for a winner on grass is a high percentage play if you can hit 1 or 2 great shots in a row. On clay you must hit 5 perfect shots in a row and that is not high percentage tennis for anybody.
Nadal hit 29 winners and 26 unforced errors against Nieminen. Great, he beat Little Sisters of the poor, a pretty poor opponent. But that is classic clay court tennis and it simply won't work. You are expecting to win most of your points by waiting for your opponent to hit an unforced error. But great fast court players won't oblige you, they will hit many more winners than unforced errors and dictate play. You will be in an increasingly bad court position since you can't recover by hitting a great defensive lob (like you can on clay )and returning to neutral court situations.
3 more winners than unforced errors won't win against Federer and it isn't good enough to beat Baghdatis either.
This is a red flag that Nadal is still playing clay court tennis and is not playing tennis that will beat a top fast court player at a Major Grand Slam.
Baghdatis in 4 or 5.
People who think Nadal is great on fast courts already need to look at his consistently even amount of unforced errors to winners on grass, the fact that he has not beaten anybody really good at a major on a fast court and reconsider their position.
Overrated. Big time.
North Texas beats Little Sisters of the Poor by a score of 58-3 and I am now supposed to think that they can beat UT or USC? What???
Nadal is being over rated. Overrated.
Who has Nadal beaten so far that is in the top 5 or even top 10 on a fast court at a Grand Slam?
Has he beaten Roddick or Ancic or Lubijic or Nalbandian or Davydenko or Hewitt or even a promising young player (promising on grass) like Murray or Gasquet or Berdych?
Not on a fast court at a Grand Slam.
Hewitt > Nadal at Wimbledon since Hewitt has actually won Wimbledon before and best prior to this year (and Nadal has done nothing so far at Wimbledon this year) for Nadal was winning 3 matches.
But Baghdatis > Hewitt and Hewitt > Nadal implies Baghdatis > Nadal.
Baghdatis has beat the top players on fast courts in a Grand Slam. Nadal has not done this. At Australian Open he beat 3 top 5 players in the world on one of their best surfaces and took a set off of Federer.
Don't say but Nadal beat Agassi. Agassi's record for the entire year of 2006 was 0-1. He was winless the entire year prior to Wimbledon. He retires next tournament. That is why he is not a top player any more on any surface.
Some say but Nadal pounded Baghdatis in the summer. So did a lot of other people. Therefore, all of them are also much better than Baghdatis here at Wimbledon. But they aren't. Therefore, the argument proves too much.
Hewitt beat Nadal at Queens. So, by this argument, Hewitt > Nadal and Nadal > Baghdatis (since Nadal pounded Baghdatis in the summer). Hence, Hewitt should have pounded Baghdatis here at Wimbledon. But he didn't. Again, the argument proves too much.
Baghdatis beat 3 top 5 players in the world in a row and got to the Finals and this was against these players on one of their best surfaces. It was unprecedented professional success for the young man. He, therefore, enjoyed the moment and did not take the summer very seriously. He was also injured. However, the summer does not predict his performance at these Grand Slams.
Great defense is ultra important on clay. On clay, great defense is the most important aspect of a successful player's game. On clay, great defense will win matches. One cannot overstate the importance of great defense ON CLAY.
The reason is obvious. To hit a winner on clay requires 5 perfect shots in a row since the ball is so much slower and it is much easier to track down shots that would have been winners on other surfaces.
So, to win at clay, you simply have to avoid hitting many more unforced errors than you do winners. If you have about the same amount of winners as unforced errors, you are in great shape on clay.
That won't get the job done on faster surfaces at majors against great fast court players. The really good fast court players at majors will routinely hit twice as many winners as they do unforced errors.
A great shot or two on a grass court is still going fast enough that it won't be easily tracked down. So, going for a winner on grass is a high percentage play if you can hit 1 or 2 great shots in a row. On clay you must hit 5 perfect shots in a row and that is not high percentage tennis for anybody.
Nadal hit 29 winners and 26 unforced errors against Nieminen. Great, he beat Little Sisters of the poor, a pretty poor opponent. But that is classic clay court tennis and it simply won't work. You are expecting to win most of your points by waiting for your opponent to hit an unforced error. But great fast court players won't oblige you, they will hit many more winners than unforced errors and dictate play. You will be in an increasingly bad court position since you can't recover by hitting a great defensive lob (like you can on clay )and returning to neutral court situations.
3 more winners than unforced errors won't win against Federer and it isn't good enough to beat Baghdatis either.
This is a red flag that Nadal is still playing clay court tennis and is not playing tennis that will beat a top fast court player at a Major Grand Slam.
Baghdatis in 4 or 5.
People who think Nadal is great on fast courts already need to look at his consistently even amount of unforced errors to winners on grass, the fact that he has not beaten anybody really good at a major on a fast court and reconsider their position.
Overrated. Big time.