Of course I'm not saying Federer is one dimensional, I'm a huge Federer fan. I'm just saying one dimensional players do better on grass than on clay. Folks with a good serve and nothing else can get by on grass, they can't get by on clay.
About Nadal, the due has like 8 or 9 grand slams outside of clay. That's more than what many all-time greats have combined. The fact that he dominates clay like no other player before has dominated a surface shouodn't take away from his all-around game.
Nadal has 7 slams outside Clay. And about 75-80% of tour tennis is played away from that surface. So 7 is simply not good enough to be in contention for the GOAT le, he'll have to settle for #3.
We haven't even talked about how his game basically falls apart when it comes to indoor tennis. I don't understand how a player of his caliber can fail to adjust to a condition change like that.
Why?If anything, the fact that only 20% of the tour is played on Nadal's favourite surface adds to his legacy. Imagine how much more dominant he would be if the % were reversed, or even if they were 50/50 (like it was at one time).
Under the premise that Nadal can't be on the GOAT conversation because only 7 of his grand slams came outside of his favourite surface, then the same can be said about Djokovic because only 6 of his GS came outside of his favourite surface (hard courts). Do you see how re ed this take is?
The fact that hard courts is the surface where the tour is played the most (only because it is the cheapest option) doesn't take anything away from Nadal, in fact it adds to it, because he still dominates in a tour where 80% of the time is played outside his favourite surface.
But it's not reversed and nor is it 50/50.Why?
Under the premise that Nadal can't be on the GOAT conversation because only 7 of his grand slams came outside of his favourite surface, then the same can be said about Djokovic because only 6 of his GS came outside of his favourite surface (hard courts). Do you see how re ed this take is?
The fact that hard courts is the surface where the tour is played the most (only because it is the cheapest option) doesn't take anything away from Nadal, in fact it adds to it, because he still dominates in a tour where 80% of the time is played outside his favourite surface.
US Open and Aussie open are not the exact same surface. Djoker's/Sampras' success in one compared to other does a lot to prove this.
Sure, he dominates non clay. But only when compared to everyone not named Fed/Nole. That doesn't mean much when those two happen to be the only peers he's actually judged against.
I honestly don't know why putting him #3 is view as a grand insult his legacy. That being said he still has a shot to change it, he's not retired yet.
Right now, the clear #3 is Djokovic. When it's all said and done the Djoker might end #1, but right now he's the clear #3. And between Roger and Rafa, the fan in me wants to say Roger is #1 still but after this year's RG it will be hard to keep saying that.
And the fact that 80% of the tour is played on HC means nothing, why do you insist with that take?
The tour used to be played 90% on grass, then 50% on grass and 50% on clay, now 80% on hard courts, we don't know what the future will hold. Using this as an argument makes no sense, specially when it could be used in favour of Nadal. Imagine if Nadal was born on the era that the tour was played 50% on Clay, he would have 30 grand slams right now.
It is almost like, for you, real tennis is played in hard courts and grass, while tennis on clay isn't real tennis. That's a biased view with no logical support. Clay it's just one of the surfaces where tennis is played, and it isn't more or less than any of the other two.
Last edited by DAF86; 03-17-2021 at 06:32 PM.
Bruh.Concrete is faster than grass? What?
You're going full re (again).
The tennis experts will tell you for various reasons that clay favors defensive players. Rafa's style on clay simply cannot be duplicated on the other surfaces. He's an all-time specialist, not GOAT. He's not even in the running even if he does break the slams record.
Are 50 percent of the non pro courts clay? No, it's about 99.9999 percent non clay. So, you're basically wishing for special treatment for Nadal because he is the best slide guy.Why?
Under the premise that Nadal can't be on the GOAT conversation because only 7 of his grand slams came outside of his favourite surface, then the same can be said about Djokovic because only 6 of his GS came outside of his favourite surface (hard courts). Do you see how re ed this take is?
The fact that hard courts is the surface where the tour is played the most (only because it is the cheapest option) doesn't take anything away from Nadal, in fact it adds to it, because he still dominates in a tour where 80% of the time is played outside his favourite surface.
Sure, that's why he has won every single slam and has 7 grand slams outside of clay. That's just one less than Agassi's total.
You talk about tennis experts, dude, I am a tennis expert, listen to me, tbh.
Yes, at one point, clay courts made about 50% of the ATP tournaments. Australia and Wimbledon were played on grass and Roland Garros and the US Open were played on clay. Imagine if Rafa played on tha era. It would have been game over for the GOAT discussion.Are 50 percent of the non pro courts clay? No, it's about 99.9999 percent non clay. So, you're basically wishing for special treatment for Nadal because he is the best slide guy.
And the fact that, like you said, 99.99999 percent of tournaments aren't played on clay it's actually an argument in favour of Nadal. Only 00.000001 of the tour is played on his surface and he still holds the all-time record for slams won.
Way to show you have no argument to make.
Seven of 3/4 vs thirteen of 1/4.Sure, that's why he has won every single slam and has 7 grand slams outside of clay. That's just one less than Agassi's total.
You talk about tennis experts, dude, I am a tennis expert, listen to me, tbh.
Do you not realize how major a discrepancy that is?
If it's been say 20 years, then that means he wins roughly ten percent of the time on non-clay surface vs. sixty-five percent on clay. That's just a rough estimate, but that's a huge disparity. You can't just write that off.
No, the 99.999 percent number is just based on all tennis courts in the world. People don't train on them or compete on them, so it doesn't make sense to drastically change the parameters for the ATP.Yes, at one point, clay courts made about 50% of the ATP tournaments. Australia and Wimbledon were played on grass and Roland Garros and the US Open were played on clay. Imagine if Rafa played on tha era. It would have been game over for the GOAT discussion.
And the fact that, like you said, 99.99999 percent of tournaments aren't played on clay it's actually an argument in favour of Nadal. Only 00.000001 of the tour is played on his surface and he still holds the all-time record for slams won.
Clay vs other surfaces is like beach soccer vs. regular soccer. Nadal is better at navigating the extreme condition than others. Put him on the more fluid surface and he's no longer dominant.
And how does that take anything away from Nadal?
Agassi is considered by everybody an all-time great and he has 8 slams on almost 20 years of career. And that's 8 of 4/4 becuase we aren't taking any slam away from Agassi like we are doing with Rafa's RGs.
Agassi 8 of 4/4 - Rafa 7 of 3/4 = Rafa being greater than Agassi on non clay courts.
Last edited by DAF86; 03-17-2021 at 09:21 PM.
That's just a bull argument full of lies.
There are millions of more clay courts than grass ones, yet you are discriminating against clay but not grass. What's the logic behind that other than plain bias?
Also, the beach soccer argument is such a bull comparisson. Beach soccer and regular soccer are different sports, that's why Messi and Ronaldo don't have to play on sand. Clay is one of the surfaces used on the ATP, just like grass and hard courts.
Agassi lost valuable years in his compe ive window by living the party boy lifestyle. And it even bled into his ability to win directly. He boycotted Wimbledon some number of times on their stance that players not be forced to wear white. That's bad ass and not something a ring chaser like Nadal would ever do.Sure, that's why he has won every single slam and has 7 grand slams outside of clay. That's just one less than Agassi's total.
You talk about tennis experts, dude, I am a tennis expert, listen to me, tbh.
When Agassi finally got full-on serious, he was arguably as good as anyone.
Because grass is just a softened version of cement. It doesn't add crazy aspects to the game like clay does with sliding.That's just a bull argument full of lies.
There are millions of more clay courts than grass ones, yet you are discriminating against clay but not grass. What's the logic behind that other than plain bias?
If soccer was mostly played on sand, Messi would be out of the running for GOAT. Some specialist would be in the running. Yes, your argument is along those lines. Bull as you might say.
Dude, is clear you know nothing about the sport, tbh. Go do some research if you want to keep arguing with me.
And if it was played on lava, everh player would die.
That's just a re ed argunent.
I know the game is drastically more different on clay than any other utilized surface. Your arguments to the contrary are desperate.
The difference between grass/cement and clay is striking as well. And Rafa's numbers attest to this fact. Deal with it.And if it was played on lava, everh player would die.
That's just a re ed argunent.
The difference between grass and hard courts is about the same as clay and hard courts. Here, educate yourself.
https://www.myactivesg.com/Sports/Te...-tennis-courts
Hard courts being faster than grass.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
