This entry is now closed for comments.
armchair59,Hahaha...Funny thing is that I always wanted see Borg play McEnroe on clay. Borg showed up many times to play McEnroe on his favourable surfaces.I think timing is paramount on the faster surfaces. That would be very interesting if all players had to serve underarm. I do agree that Federer would definitely be at or near the top because his basics are so good.
Laki I think he would be too knackered for tantrums! I agree to a point but think fast courts test players technique more due to quicker bounce. Nadal's forhand for example so deadly on clay can break down a bit on faster courts - even with his great skill. If serves were underarm I suspect Federer would still be successful on fast courts as his technique is so sound
armchair59,I think clay requires a more balanced approach than the other surfaces. I requires fitness, mental toughness and patience. I can't remember which player stated that the serve on clay was to get the point started. If I come across the player, I will let you know.I think Bjorn would've drove John crazy on clay. Could you imagine the outbursts!
Thanks for reply Laki. I did not mean to imply that thinking was unimportant but I do think athleticism as more of a crucial factor on clay. I completely agree regarding McEnroe's tactics v Borg. However the subtle 'thinking' variations you mention were not effective for him on clay due to the slow pace of the court. They never played on clay but I doubt McEnroe would have won a set.
Roger is the best server because he can integrate this asset with the next few shots in most rallies on hard/grass court better than everyone except Novak.. However on clay his serve is less effective and the skills involved in rallying become more valuable. The great clay court players did not expect to win by opening packets of cornflakes.
@421 If fast court players can't maintain skill levels on clay then they can miss the clay season if they want but should not be able to make up ranking points by choosing easier hard court events instead. The same must apply to slower court players. Ones ranking should reflect ones results on ALL surfaces. It appears you do not value clay courts or the better players on that surface.
@ 421armchair59,I respectfully disagree.Clay is the thinking man's playing surface. It requires not only speed and power, but a lot more GAME strategy than playing on fast surfaces.A player who can win multiple Slams on both slow and fast surfaces is a more complete/better player than a player who excels only on slow or fast surfaces.
armchair59,Hmmm...I'm not sure how to respond to that. A tennis player is always thinking on the court. It is absolutely critical to success in my opinion but others may think differently. I remember when McEnroe would consistently change the velocity and spin of his groundstrokes against Borg in order to keep him off balance. This approach took a lot of thought and mental toughness.
Clay drags matches into a battle of fitness and consistency and reduces the role of skill. In 1984 McEnroe was more skilful than Lendl but in the end the clay rewarded Lendl's better athleticism. In 1989 Edberg eventually lost to Chang for the same reason. This scenario is so often repeated I am surprised fast court players do not skip the clay as the clay courters used to do Wimbledon
Outlasting is part of the sport too. It also requires maintaining your skill level. Thinking is redundant when being aced at 140mph. @419- your last sentence suggests that your more skilful player is not as skilful as you think. Finally Roger is fitter now than a few years ago. In his case you seem not to have an argument. In others , perhaps you do.
@408 I agree with you about Nadal's superior fitness and athletic prowess being key to his clay court success. But outthinking his opponents? Sorry but I think clay is more about outlasting than outthinking. Plus the slow bounce of the court reduces the advantage a more skilful player has over a fitter one.
@415 Good shout. It's great to have 2 such promising Brits competing at the highest levels. Personally I prefer the type of tennis Evans plays - but I like them both. Sadly for Evans, without any really fast courts on the tour there are few places technically better but less athletic players like Evans can pick up points. The courts are far more Edmund/Nadal friendly these days.
I have not read the initial comments and I have not claimed Nadal is the greatest.My view is that goes to Laver / Borg and I rate Novak better than Roger and Rafael. Rankings are done over 52 weeks so benefits non clay players more as there are more high ranking non clay events. I do not blame Roger for his sycophants. I detest the seeding agenda referred to. I made the case for all players.
If the use the magic mushroom formula for men, then it should be used for women too, hence Serena, the greatest women's player would be seeded in the top 8 not at 11, which makes a huge difference, and Kerber at 2 and not 5, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. By the way, the archaic Wimbledon dustballs just don't like back to back GS victors, it deminishes SW19 importance!
Sorry to hijack Nadal but there is no HYS on this one so Congratulations to Kyle Edmund!What an amazing match with Dan Evans from both. Wonderful to see two British players putting on such an entertaining show. It was one of the best Eastbourne matches I have ever seen!
@413 There are just as many, if not more, silly 'Nadal is the greatest' comments as the unsubstantiated ones praising Federer. You probably just don't notice them as they suit your own player preferences George Adams! LivingDeadGrrl does not make inaccurate or baseless observations about any player. And unlike other posters they actually read and comment on points other people have made
This issue should be raised more widely and not left to Laki, Dbmaddison and myself. The sycophantic adherence to Roger is over the top and I recall the days when Ivan Lendl was not so well treated by the British press. Other players should stand up for what they have earned.
I was in the Faroe Isles during Wimbledon last year so only became aware of this now. I saw none of it. If his seeding was due to his/a protected ranking consideration this is different but still I don't like it. Nadal did not compete in Wimbledon2009. I am against false seeding regardless- does that clear up the issue? I wasnt thinking about Sampras breaking serves.
Alan,You have said it all. One system should be used by all and that is what most of us want.
We're having some problems displaying the comments at the moment. Sorry. We're doing our best to fix it.
You must sign in to rate comments