Roger vs Nadal would be 9-1 on fast courts if Nadal were a better player

[Mavs<Spurs]

I think that I probably misspelled Youzney's name. A guy that is so great that he can beat Nadal must be so famous that you would think that this would not happen. Or maybe not.

This is for all the Nadal fast court apologists (the guys who keep saying Nadal is the second best player on fast courts, the second best player in the world and as good as or better than Federer [the various claims made]).

Look people, I said this was going to happen a long time ago. I have been saying this for the last two years, even posting it here for a while.

Nadal is the best on clay. Youzney is mediocre at best. But that is more than good enough to beat the clay courter on a fast hard court.

Dubai is a very slow hard court. That is why he beat Roger on a hard court there. Otherwise, his record against Roger on hard courts isn't that awesome.

In what fast, hard court grand slam has Nadal proven that he is among the elite?
Wimbledon? He struggled to beat Kendrick who is not even ranked in the top 200. Agassi does not count since Agassi had such a terrible record this year due to his back problems which caused him to retire. The only person that is any good that he beat at Wimbledon was Baghdatis who is inconsistent and still an up and comer. So, Nadal didn't prove much to me at Wimbledon.

Otherwise, he has done nothing at all at other hard court fast Grand Slams.
That is just the fact. Moreover, look at Nadal's hard court record in America this past summer.

I was wrong about the US men's basketball team walking in with LeBron, WAde and Carmelo and just winning easy. Same sport, but slightly different (in this case the rules).

In tennis, the same thing applies. Clay court tennis is tennis, but it is very different than hard court tennis. Talent alone (which Nadal has in abundance) is not enough. He must adjust his game just like our men's team has to adjust their game to the international rules.

Nadal is probably in the top ten on hard courts. But most of the time, he will not beat the guys who are really good on hard courts at the fast hard court Grand Slams.

His slow serve (1 ace against Youzney, the great Russian)? That slow, short, looping topspin forehand? Standing 10 feet behind the baseline to return serve? Net play?

All of these are serious weaknesses of Nadal on a hard court. They don't matter on clay courts. But on hard courts, they do and you simply can't win consistently playing like that at the fast court Grand Slams.

You don't have time to think in the middle of a point that you want to flatten your shot out since you are not playing on clay. It is all instinct based upon repetition. Nadal can't think before each shot where am I, oh I am on hard court. For the most part, he will have to choose one style of play: either it will be his normal game and he will be a good (but not great) fast court player and win on clay and come in 8th at the fast court Majors or he will switch his game.

This will take more than a month to accomplish.

There is no reason to think that Nadal can't do this over the next year or two. He is very athletic and I certainly believe that he can, but he has not done it yet.

The high back hand shot is hard for Roger to handle on clay, because of the weight of the shot due to the clay. While it is not easy for him (or anybody else) on other surfaces, it is not a great vulnerability for him. He can time the ball on other surfaces and take it early because of the predictable bounces. Thus, much of the time, it won't even get high on other surfaces.

Finally, for all of those who endlessly repeat Nadal's record against Federer shows that Nadal is better, please consider the following facts as well:

(1) most of Nadal's wins against Roger have been on clay and some of those clay court matches (e.g. Rome) have been competitive (Roger had match point in Rome)
(2) when you take away the clay court matches, their record is about even

(3) when you recognize that Dubai is a slow hard court, then the significance of that match is less

(4) their record would be very different if Nadal had actually been good enough on fast courts to play Roger in the fast court Grand Slams (after all if Kendrick can trouble him on hard courts and Youzney can beat him among other mediocre players, then what would Roger do to him?). Undoubtedly in each of the 8 fast court Grand Slams which Roger won and they did not play (they did play at Wimbledon - which is why it is not 9), Roger would have beaten Nadal. Thus, his record on hard courts would be something like 9-1 had Nadal actually been good enough to meet Roger in the finals.

(5) Roger has 9 fast Grand Slams, Lleyton has 2 Roddick has 1, Safin has 2, Nadal has 0

Moreover, since 3/4 of the Grand Slams and the vast majority of points are on non clay court surfaces and the following players are better than Nadal on non clay court surfaces, I consider Nadal a top 10 player and a very good clay courter and probably tenth in the world on other surfaces (but susceptible to the tremendous talents of the mediocre (not in top 50) great (so say the Nadal fast court apologists) Russian Michael Youzney):

My list of players who are beater than Nadal when they are not on clay court includes (remember upsets or anomalies do occur so it is possible Nadal could beat them a couple of times at hard court Grand Slams, but not likely):

James Blake, Andy Roddick, Ancic, Berdych, Murray, Nalbandian, Haas to name but a few.


Remember, while Federer has lost some matches on fast courts to players who are not world beaters, Federer has established himself as one of the all time great players on fast courts by winning 9 Grand Slams. Nadal has lost to some mediocre players on fast courts and does not have redeeming wins at fast court Grand Slams to make up for it.

Suppose Federer were not so dominant. Then Federer does not win the US Open. Then, Roddick, the other finalist does. Then, Roddick wins the US Open series and wins the US Open itself. Now, the Australian Open is coming up and whoever of the two of them does better (between Roddick and Nadal) is the number two player in the world. Smart money would be on Roddick to do better at the Australian. Then, Roddick is number 2.
In other words, the only reason Nadal is number two in the world is because Roger Federer is so dominant on fast courts. Otherwise, Nadal would probably not be second in the world.

[mavsfan1000]

Dubai was not a slow hard court. Watch the youtube version and the courts actually play pretty fast. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FHlQDh-PVo&mode=related&search= Nadal was just really on his game that day. Maybe it was just a coincidence but even Wimbledon Nadal gave Federer some problems. I think Nadal's biggest mistake was taking a month off after Wimbledon. He lost all the momentum he had there. I think the Australian Open is where Nadal will probably have his first breakout tournament on hard court and possibly beat Federer. Nice writeout btw and I agree that Federer is better than Nadal on hardcourts.

My list of players who are beater than Nadal when they are not on clay court includes (remember upsets or anomalies do occur so it is possible Nadal could beat them a couple of times at hard court Grand Slams, but not likely):

James Blake, Andy Roddick, Ancic, Berdych, Murray, Nalbandian, Haas to name but a few.

I think Blake, Berdych, and Roddick are better than Nadal at the US Open because of their big weapons but the rest you mentioned don't have the weapons to put Nadal on the defense and show his vulnerability on the hard courts. Nadal already beat Haas on hard courts before the US Open.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Dubai was not a slow hard court. Watch the youtube version and the courts actually play pretty fast. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FHlQDh-PVo&mode=related&search= Nadal was just really on his game that day. Maybe it was just a coincidence but even Wimbledon Nadal gave Federer some problems. I think Nadal's biggest mistake was taking a month off after Wimbledon. He lost all the momentum he had there. I think the Australian Open is where Nadal will probably have his first breakout tournament on hard court and possibly beat Federer. Nice writeout btw and I agree that Federer is better than Nadal on hardcourts.
I think Blake, Berdych, and Roddick are better than Nadal at the US Open because of their big weapons but the rest you mentioned don't have the weapons to put Nadal on the defense and show his vulnerability on the hard courts. Nadal already beat Haas on hard courts before the US Open.

Disagree. First, most tennis commentators (e.g. the McEnroes) will tell you that Dubai is a relatively slow hard court.
Second, when Roger and Rafael played at the French Open it was closer than when they played at Wimbledon. Roger won more games against Nadal at the French than Rafael won against Roger at Wimbledon. Moreover, Roger was up 5-1 in the fourth. There were two lopsided sets that Roger won (the first and the fourth) at Wimbledon.

After Wimbledon, I didn't feel that Nadal had much momentum, to be honest. Again, as I see it, he did not beat anybody that is good, except the inconsistent, up and comer Baghdatis. Agassi did not even have a winning record this year prior to Wimbledon and that rules him out. He took five sets to beat the 212th ranked player in the world and Kendrick served for the match. Had he lost that match (and he very nearly did), he would have been one and done. I will say that other tennis commentators do feel the same way that you do (about the month off hurting him). I just think that they are kind of promoting it for ratings and interest.

I am unsure of what basis you would have for your confidence that Nadal will have a breakout tournament at the Australian Open. Based upon his game, the Australian Open is not a favorable surface for him. He did nothing at all this summer on hard court. He had a mediocre US Open, losing to Youzney. Given his easy draw, in my opinion he shoud have done better.

I will say that it may not seem as clear that Haas, Ancic or Nalbandian are better hard court players than Nadal, but I believe that it is supported by facts.
Nalbandian has had a number of good results at fast court Grand Slams. He has an all court game. He does not have the weaknesses that a pronounced clay courter has (e.g. slow serve, return form 10 feet behind the backhand, slow, looping topspin, poor at net). The same thing is true for Haas. Haas is better at net, has a better return of serve, is closer to the baseline, has a better serve and has done well in the past on fast courts. Ancic seems to be clearly a much better player on any fast court and I can hardly see anyone doubting that fact. Ancic's serve and his volley and his big shots give him an obvious advantage.

Going into the Australian this coming year, Roger won the Australian last year, got to the Finals at the French, won Wimbledon for the fourth time in a row and won the US Open for the third year in a row. Expecting Roger to lose to Nadal at the Australian seems like expecting to win the lottery.
The real question is whether or not Nadal will win a match or two there. He very well may not. He has never, ever advanced even to the quarterfinals of the event before. Roger has won it twice. So, prior to predicting this, you might want to consider these facts. Do you really want to lay your money down on this bet: I will wager you a nickel that Rafael Nadal will lose in an earlier round before Roger loses (if Roger even loses which he won 't) or Nadal will lose to Roger at the Australian.

Anyone who would actually take that bet is a sucker.

Did you see Rafa's smile as he was losing badly to the great Russian?
John McEnroe said it was similar to when he lost very badly to Blake at the US Open the previous year.



I think Nadal is extremely talented and a very good tennis player. He has the potential to become one of the three or four best fast court tennis players in the world [(Blake, Roddick, Nadal) all following Roger].

However, I won't consider him the second best player in the world until several things happen:

(1) he changes his game so that he (a) gets more than 1 ace a match, (b) improves his return of serve and does not stand 10 feet behind the baseline to return serve, (c) flattens out his groundstrokes, especially his forehand consistently and (d) improves some at net.

(2) he wins a Grand Slam major that is not named the French Open

(3) he beats several great fast court players at a fast court Grand Slam ( like Bahgdatis who beat 3 top 5 players at the Australian Open in a row). For example, if Nadal beat Roddick, Blake and Berdych or Nadal beat Roddick, Blake and Hewitt... at the Australian Open.

Until he does (1), (2) and (3), I won't consider him the second best fast court tennis player in the world not the second best tennis player (in general) in the world.

It is much more likely that Roger will beat Rafael Nadal at the French Open than Rafael Nadal will beat Roger Federer at the Australian Open or any Grand Slam.

The hope is that Nadal will adjust his game to become better at other fast court surfaces.

However, the fear is that Nadal won't change his game, is a known quantity and good fast court players now have a specific plan which will always work against Nadal on fast courts when executed well.
In other words, Nadal will fade away and we will soon be looking for another second best player in the world to compete against Roger.

Probably the latter is the most likely thing to occur.

[mavsfan1000]

This is how I see Nadal on hard courts. Unlike clay courts Nadal is very inconsistent on how he plays on hard courts. On some days he is hitting through the court and getting aces. For example that match in Dubai and the first round match against Philipoussis. The problem is he can't hit out all the time for some reason and starts becoming defensive. While on clay he can get away with that when he isn't confident on hard court players can take advantage of that. Australian Open courts are much slower than the US Open courts and Nadal was hurt this year so he didn't have an opportunity to have a great result there. Nadal getting to the finals of Wimbledon and getting unlucky in a quarterfinal match against a very Youzhny is what I call the second best player. Roddick, Blake, and Berdych do nothing on clay or grass.


In other words, Nadal will fade away and we will soon be looking for another second best player in the world to compete against Roger.
Nadal is 20 years old. He has a long career ahead of him. He is still learning how to play on faster hard courts.

Also I remember Patrick Mcenroe saying the courts on Dubai are fast. You need to watch slow hard courts to notice the difference.

[mavsfan1000]

(not in top 50) great (so say the Nadal fast court apologists) Russian Michael Youzney):

Well the not so good Michael Youzhney just beat Blake in 4 sets in the Davis Cup so he definitely isn't playing like he is ranked.

[Mavs<Spurs]

This is how I see Nadal on hard courts. Unlike clay courts Nadal is very inconsistent on how he plays on hard courts. On some days he is hitting through the court and getting aces. For example that match in Dubai and the first round match against Philipoussis. The problem is he can't hit out all the time for some reason and starts becoming defensive. While on clay he can get away with that when he isn't confident on hard court players can take advantage of that. Australian Open courts are much slower than the US Open courts and Nadal was hurt this year so he didn't have an opportunity to have a great result there. Nadal getting to the finals of Wimbledon and getting unlucky in a quarterfinal match against a very Youzhny is what I call the second best player. Roddick, Blake, and Berdych do nothing on clay or grass.

Nadal is 20 years old. He has a long career ahead of him. He is still learning how to play on faster hard courts.

Also I remember Patrick Mcenroe saying the courts on Dubai are fast. You need to watch slow hard courts to notice the difference.


Roddick has been to the finals of Wimbledon more than once (unlike Nadal).
Berdych and Blake both have the type of game that is successful on any nonclay court surface. Nadal has the type of game that is only successful on a clay court or against lesser players on a fast court (not against the top fast court players in a major). Everybody who knows tennis knows this.
If you dispute this then either you are being an obscurantist or you just don't know tennis very well.

PMac did not say that Dubai is a fast hard court.
Consistent bounces mean that Nadal can't force his opponent against the wall with his high bounce, heavy topspin forehands. They can be taken early on the Rebound Ace surface.

A surface which gives a predictable bounce is even more important than the speed of a nonclay court surface.
While the US Open may be slightly faster than the Australian, both are fast courts. Lleyton complains that is is not quite as fast as he would like it. Nevertheless, it is definitely a pretty fast court and much faster than you find at the French Open.


Youzney is 51 in the world. Blake is not a good clay court player. It is not unexpected. But if Youzney is so great, why not play on a hard court ? Is it because Blake is the much better player on hard court? Obviously they felt they had a better chance if they played on Clay, even without Davydenko.
Roddick lost to Tursonov on Clay. Does this mean that you think that Tursonov is better than Roddick on hard courts? IMO, Tursonov > Youzney on hard courts, at least more dangerous. Yet, nobody who knows tennis seriously believes that Tursonov is better than Roddick on hard court due to this result. Sounds like you are reaching.

I am sure that you know tennis better than this. You must be joking or writing stuff you know is insane.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Nadal getting to the finals of Wimbledon and getting unlucky in a quarterfinal match against a very Youzhny is what I call the second best player.

:spin :nope :nope :nope

This is how one becomes considered the second best tennis player in the world? by getting slapped down 6-1 (barely avoiding a bagel) in the fourth set against a guy not even in the top fifty? Nadal barely won his first round match at Wimbledon against a guy not even in the top 200. Kendrick served for the match and was up big in the tie break. Nadal did nothing all summer and never has had a good summer on the American hard courts. He has never done anything at the Australian. He had an easy draw at Wimbledon and had never done anything there previously.


C'mon.

You can't be serious.

Are your kidneys bothering you?

Roddick beat Youzney. Roddick only lost one close set and never lost his serve. Nadal faded like a bleached pair of jeans. Get out the fork and put away the knife because he was done and done in by a guy not even in the top fifty.

I think that we're done here.

[mavsfan1000]

Just to give you a hint on what Youzhny is not really a clay court player either. He takes the ball early like Blake but I guess he beat Blake at his own game. Youzhny is a nightmare matchup for Nadal in that he likes to hit a lot of balls and his backhand is his strength and that is where Nadal likes to breakdown most opponents. He destroyed Robredo in the Quarterfinals. I pick Nadal>Roddick or anyone else that you consider higher than Nadal (except Federer) because Nadal on hardcourt>Blake and Roddick on clay. Nadal has beaten legit players on hardcourt but the matchups are very important to him on this surface. Rebound ace courts are somewhere in the middle between the french open speed and the US Open. My prediction on Nadal's career is that he will win 7 French Opens and 2 Australian Opens. He will struggle at the US Open and Wimbledon though.

On your theory of predictable bounces vs. speed of the court I agree partially. That's why Nadal did well at Wimbledon but on any courts that are slow it allows Nadal more time to change grips for his forehand which is the key to his game on clay. When given the time he can put a nasty topspin on the ball that will work on any surface. He is given more opportunities to do this on a slower surfaces though.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Just to give you a hint on what Youzhny is not really a clay court player either. He takes the ball early like Blake but I guess he beat Blake at his own game. Youzhny is a nightmare matchup for Nadal in that he likes to hit a lot of balls and his backhand is his strength and that is where Nadal likes to breakdown most opponents. He destroyed Robredo in the Quarterfinals. I pick Nadal>Roddick or anyone else that you consider higher than Nadal (except Federer) because Nadal on hardcourt>Blake and Roddick on clay. Nadal has beaten legit players on hardcourt but the matchups are very important to him on this surface. Rebound ace courts are somewhere in the middle between the french open speed and the US Open. My prediction on Nadal's career is that he will win 7 French Opens and 2 Australian Opens. He will struggle at the US Open and Wimbledon though.

On your theory of predictable bounces vs. speed of the court I agree partially. That's why Nadal did well at Wimbledon but on any courts that are slow it allows Nadal more time to change grips for his forehand which is the key to his game on clay. When given the time he can put a nasty topspin on the ball that will work on any surface. He is given more opportunities to do this on a slower surfaces though.


MavsFan, clay is 1/4 of the points and surfaces.
Therefore, the numbers do not support your position.

I don't believe that his topspin is as effective on hardcourt or rebound ace.
It is somewhat effective on grass because the Wimbledon grass does not yield a predictable bounce.

Federer on Clay is better than Nadal on any surface other than Clay.
Nothing is impossible, but it sure seems unlikely that Nadal will beat Roger Federer at the Australian, or Wimbledon or the US Open.
Nadal will have to wait until Federer retires or is injured to win any of the 3 important majors.

I notice that you do not really believe your position that Nadal will beat Federer at the Australian Open since you do not take the bet for a nickel.


So, I think that you are smarter than this.

[mavsfan1000]

I think Nadal can beat Federer at the Australian Open just like he did at Dubai but it always hard betting against Federer. Also I support over and over again that Federer is clearly better than Nadal. The better player doesn't always win though and slow hard courts Federer is slightly vulnerable. He lost to Safin a year and a half ago and had to win in 5 sets to beat Haas this year. I've seen Nadal's spin work on all surfaces as long as he keeps the ball deep. When he struggles his balls are going short. Nadal is the best clay court player and a top 5 hard court player and on rebound ace the second best as will be proven next year at the Australian Open. US Open is Nadal's toughest tournament and I think will always be but I have more confidence in his game at the Australian Open.

[Mavs<Spurs]

[QUOTE=mavsfan1000]I think Nadal can beat Federer at the Australian Open just like he did at Dubai but it always hard betting against Federer. Also I support over and over again that Federer is clearly better than Nadal. The better player doesn't always win though and slow hard courts Federer is slightly vulnerable. He lost to Safin a year and a half ago and had to win in 5 sets to beat Haas this year. I've seen Nadal's spin work on all surfaces as long as he keeps the ball deep. When he struggles his balls are going short. Nadal is the best clay court player and a top 5 hard court player and on rebound ace the second best as will be proven next year at the Australian Open. US Open is Nadal's toughest tournament and I think will always be but I have more confidence in his game at the Australian Open.[/QUOTE

I guess I can understand that.

[MajorMike]

Wow, that's a lot of talk for a fuzzy ball.